Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM INDEX NO. E2021008184
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.
Receipt # 3199935
Book Page CIVIL
Return To: No. Pages: 9
County of Monroe Department of Law
Instrument: ANSWER
Control #: 202209200623
Index #: E2021008184
Date: 09/20/2022
Adler, Sabine Time: 1:06:57 PM
Aweis, Halima
Barron, Annalisa
Bauman, Hannah
Beiter, Shea
The City of Rochester
KOERNER, MICHAEL
LUDWIG, GERALD
Baxter, Todd
Total Fees Paid: $0.00
Employee:
State of New York
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE
WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.
JAMIE ROMEO
MONROE COUNTY CLERK
1 of 9
202209200623 Index #
INDEX : E2021008184
NO. E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF MONROE
SABINE ADLER, HALIMA AWEIS, ANNALISA
BARRON, HANNAH BAUMAN, SHEA BEITER,
HILLARY BIALECKI, ENID BRADY, CARLY BRYANT,
KEVONNA BUCHANAN, BREYANA CLARK, JAMES
DIETZ, LESLIE HANNON, EMILY HIGGINS, DEVIN
HOTT, TAYLOR HOWARTH, JAZMIN HULL,
KATHARINA JACKSON, AMBER JAMES, AMBER
JOHNSON, KRISTAN JOHNSON, SHANNON KEMP,
MICHELLE KLEIN, EMMA LEIGH, KODIAK
LIBERMAN-RARIDON, SILVIA LOPEZ, HILLARY
MANLEY, TAWNY MARTIN, DAVNE MCCLEARY,
SARAH MCGRATH, NAOMI MOORE, KATHLEEN
MULLANEY, IESHA OWENS, KRISTIN REISCH, CARLIE ANSWER
SCHMITZ, SABRINA SOARES-KERNS, BRIDGET
STRUB, EMMA VAN HISE, STEPHANIE VARGAS,
SERENA VIKTOR, HALIE WASHBURN, MARY ZICARI, Index No. E2021008184
Plaintiffs,
-against-
THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, a municipal entity, MICHAEL
KOERNER, GERALD LUDWIG, “JOHN DOE POLICE
OFFICERS “1–200”, (names and number of whom are
unknown at present), TODD BAXTER, “RICHARD ROE
SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES 1-200” (names and number of whom
are unknown at present), and other unidentified members of
the Rochester Police Department and Monroe County Sheriff’s
Office,
Defendants.
Defendants Todd Baxter, Gerald Ludwig, and Richard Roe Sheriff’s Deputies (the “County
Defendants”) answer plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as follows:
1. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraphs: 1-4, 9-11, 14, 21, 27, 28, 30-37, 39, 48, 51, 52,
54, 56, 83-98, 105, 106, 113, 114, 120, 121, 126, 127, 132, 133, 138, 146, 147, 154, 161,
162, 167, 168, 173, 174, 182-184, 186, 189, 190, 197, 198, 206, 207, 214, 215, 223, 224,
230, 231, 239, 240, 245, 246, 252, 253, 260, 261, 266, 271, 272, 276, 277, 282, 283, 289,
290, 295, 296, 301, 302, 309, 310, 316, 317, 323, 324, 329, 330, 336, 337, 341, 342, 346,
347, 353, 354, 360, 361, 367, 368, 372, 373, 378, 392, 401, 403-415, 431, 436.
2 of 9
202209200623 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021008184
E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
2. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
set forth in paragraphs: 5-7, 15, 17-20, 22-25, 38, 40-44, 49, 60-82, 175, 192, 194, 199, 200,
218, 236, 383, 389, 390, 398, 399.
3. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraphs: 8, 12, 16.
4. Admit the allegations against the County Defendants and deny knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph
13.
5. Deny as to the County Defendants and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs: 26, 29, 45-47, 50,
53, 55, 57-59, 99-104, 107-112, 115-119, 122-125, 128-131, 134-137, 139-145, 148-153,
155-160, 163-166, 169-172, 176-181, 185, 187, 188, 191, 193, 195, 196, 201-205, 208-213,
216, 217, 219-222, 225-229, 232-235, 237, 238, 241-244, 247-251, 254-259, 262-265, 267-
270, 273-275, 278-281, 284-288, 291-294, 297-300, 303-308, 311-315, 318-322, 325-328,
331-335, 338-340, 343-345, 348-352, 355-359, 362-366, 369-371, 374-377, 380-382, 384-
388, 391, 394-397, 400, 430, 432-435.
6. Deny the un-numbered paragraph between paragraphs 154 and 155.
7. Deny that the County Defendants wrongly arrested Wilt and deny knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph
236.
8. Respond to paragraphs 379, 393, 402, 429, as responded to elsewhere herein.
9. Respond to paragraphs 416-428, 437-439, by denying that said paragraphs set forth any
allegations or claims against the County Defendants, deny said paragraphs as to the County
Defendants and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations set forth in said paragraphs.
10. Any allegation set forth in the Complaint that is not addressed above is denied.
2
3 of 9
202209200623 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021008184
E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
1st Affirmative Defense
1. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted as
against the County Defendants under either Federal or New York State law.
2nd Affirmative Defense
2. Plaintiffs’ culpable conduct, contributory negligence, and/or assumption of risk caused
the damages alleged in the Complaint.
3rd Affirmative Defense
3. If plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages, those damages should be diminished in
the proportion that the culpable conduct attributable to the plaintiffs bears to the culpable conduct that
caused the damages.
4th Affirmative Defense
4. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.
5th Affirmative Defense
5. The damages alleged in the Complaint were caused by the culpable conduct and/or
negligence of third parties, including but not limited to the City of Rochester and/or the Rochester
Police Department, and some of the protestors, whose acts or omissions were not foreseeable by the
County Defendants, and which constitute an intervening or superseding cause that precludes liability
on the part of the County Defendants as a matter of law and/or requires a reduction of any damages
awarded against the County Defendants.
6th Affirmative Defense
6. Any use of force by the County Defendants, including unnamed Richard Roes, was
objectively reasonable and justified under New York State and Federal Law.
7th Affirmative Defense
7. Any use of force did not rise to the level of any constitutional violation and/or was
reasonable and necessary.
3
4 of 9
202209200623 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021008184
E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
8th Affirmative Defense
8. The County Defendants, including any unnamed Richard Roes, are entitled to good
faith immunity and discretionary immunity from suit.
9th Affirmative Defense
9. The County Defendants, including any unnamed Richard Roes, did not violate any
clearly established right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and are therefore entitled
to qualified immunity.
10th Affirmative Defense
10. Any conduct of the County Defendants, including any unnamed Richard Roes, was
justified in the circumstances, was privileged conduct in the performance of police function, was
supported by probable cause, and was reasonably necessary to the performance of their duties and in
accordance with requirements of law.
11th Affirmative Defense
11. The County Defendants did not authorize, condone, permit, or ratify any alleged
improper or malicious conduct of the part of any person or adopt any policy condoning such conduct.
12th Affirmative Defense
12. Punitive damages are not available against the Monroe County Sheriff in his official
capacity.
13th Affirmative Defense
13. The Amended Complaint fails to allege facts that any of the County Defendants acted
maliciously, wantonly, or in a manner which manifested a gross deviation from the standard of
conduct which a reasonable person would follow, and has therefore failed to allege facts upon which
an award of punitive damages could be granted as a matter of law.
14th Affirmative Defense
14. The Sheriff in his official capacity have governmental immunity from liability for the
4
5 of 9
202209200623 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021008184
E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
damages alleged in the Complaint.
15th Affirmative Defense
15. If the damages for which the plaintiffs seek recovery were caused by the culpable
conduct or negligence of any party other than the plaintiffs or the County Defendants, then they were
caused in part by the culpable conduct and/or negligence of the defendants other than the County
Defendants. If the plaintiffs recover a judgment against the County Defendants, then the County
Defendants are entitled to indemnification implied by operation of law, from these other defendants,
in the full amount of such judgment together with costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees.
16th Affirmative Defense
16. Any duty attributable to performing police functions, or to employ, train, or equip a
law enforcement force or an individual law enforcement officer, is a duty to the general public and
not a duty to any particular individual upon which liability may be premised unless a special duty is
established. There was no special duty between any of the plaintiffs and any of the County
Defendants.
17th Affirmative Defense
17. The doctrine of respondeat superior is unavailable under New York State law as a
basis for imposing liability on the Sheriff for the alleged acts of Sheriff’s deputies who were engaged
in a criminal justice function.
18th Affirmative Defense
18. The doctrine of respondeat superior is unavailable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 as a basis
for imposing liability on the Sheriff for the conduct of the Sheriff’s deputies.
19th Affirmative Defense
19. Any recovery by plaintiffs is subject to reduction, after trial, for collateral source
payments made or to be made for economic loss pursuant to CPLR §4545.
20th Affirmative Defense
5
6 of 9
202209200623 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021008184
E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
20. In the event that the liability of the County Defendants are found to be 50% or less of
the total liability assigned to all persons and entities liable, the liability of the County Defendants to
the plaintiffs for her non-economic loss shall not exceed the County Defendants’ equitable share
determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person and entity causing or
contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss. If the plaintiffs recover a verdict against the
County Defendants, the County Defendants are entitled to limited liability pursuant to Article 16 of
the CPLR.
21st Affirmative Defense
21. That the injuries alleged in the Complaint were caused or occasioned solely, or in part,
by the negligent, reckless, intentional, or otherwise wrongful conduct, including both acts and
omissions, attributable to a third party, whose acts or omissions were not foreseeable by the County
Defendants and constitute an intervening cause which precludes liability on the part of the County
Defendants as a matter of law.
22nd Affirmative Defense
22. That punitive damages cannot be awarded against a municipality or any individuals
whom a municipality is required to indemnify.
23rd Affirmative Defense
23. In the event the Complaint alleges the County Defendants undertook a special duty to
the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs did not reasonably rely thereon and/or any such reliance was unreasonable
or misplaced.
24th Affirmative Defense
24. If the damages for which the plaintiffs seek recovery were caused by the culpable
conduct or negligence of any parties other than the plaintiffs or the County Defendants, they were
caused in part by the culpable conduct and/or negligence of the defendants other than the County
Defendants. If the plaintiffs recover a judgment against the County Defendants, then the County
6
7 of 9
202209200623 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021008184
E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
Defendants are entitled to contribution pursuant to Article 14 of the New York CPLR and state and
federal law, from these other defendants, in the full amount of such judgment together with costs,
disbursements, and attorneys’ fees.
WHEREFORE, the County Defendants demand judgment dismissing the Amended
Complaint, together with costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: September 20, 2022 JOHN P. BRINGEWATT,
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
Attorney for the County Defendants
Adam M. Clark, Deputy County Attorney
307 County Office Building
39 West Main Street, Rochester, NY 14614
Telephone: 585.753.1374
E-Mail: adamclark@monroecounty.gov
To: All Counsel of Record, by ECF
7
8 of 9
202209200623 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021008184
E2021008184
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022
VERIFICATION
Adam M. Clark, Esq. states under penalties of perjury that:
I am a Deputy County Attorney for the County of Monroe, the public benefit corporation named in
the foregoing Answer. I have read the foregoing Answer and I know its contents. The Answer is true
to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. This verification is made pursuant to CPLR
§3020(d)(2).
Subscribed and affirmed on September 20, 2022
Adam M. Clark
8
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM INDEX NO. E2021008184 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT. Receipt # 3199935 Book Page CIVIL Return To: No. Pages: 9 County of Monroe Department of Law Instrument: ANSWER Control #: 202209200623 Index #: E2021008184 Date: 09/20/2022 Adler, Sabine Time: 1:06:57 PM Aweis, Halima Barron, Annalisa Bauman, Hannah Beiter, Shea The City of Rochester KOERNER, MICHAEL LUDWIG, GERALD Baxter, Todd Total Fees Paid: $0.00 Employee: State of New York MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) & SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE. JAMIE ROMEO MONROE COUNTY CLERK 1 of 9 202209200623 Index # INDEX : E2021008184 NO. E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONROE SABINE ADLER, HALIMA AWEIS, ANNALISA BARRON, HANNAH BAUMAN, SHEA BEITER, HILLARY BIALECKI, ENID BRADY, CARLY BRYANT, KEVONNA BUCHANAN, BREYANA CLARK, JAMES DIETZ, LESLIE HANNON, EMILY HIGGINS, DEVIN HOTT, TAYLOR HOWARTH, JAZMIN HULL, KATHARINA JACKSON, AMBER JAMES, AMBER JOHNSON, KRISTAN JOHNSON, SHANNON KEMP, MICHELLE KLEIN, EMMA LEIGH, KODIAK LIBERMAN-RARIDON, SILVIA LOPEZ, HILLARY MANLEY, TAWNY MARTIN, DAVNE MCCLEARY, SARAH MCGRATH, NAOMI MOORE, KATHLEEN MULLANEY, IESHA OWENS, KRISTIN REISCH, CARLIE ANSWER SCHMITZ, SABRINA SOARES-KERNS, BRIDGET STRUB, EMMA VAN HISE, STEPHANIE VARGAS, SERENA VIKTOR, HALIE WASHBURN, MARY ZICARI, Index No. E2021008184 Plaintiffs, -against- THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, a municipal entity, MICHAEL KOERNER, GERALD LUDWIG, “JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICERS “1–200”, (names and number of whom are unknown at present), TODD BAXTER, “RICHARD ROE SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES 1-200” (names and number of whom are unknown at present), and other unidentified members of the Rochester Police Department and Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, Defendants. Defendants Todd Baxter, Gerald Ludwig, and Richard Roe Sheriff’s Deputies (the “County Defendants”) answer plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraphs: 1-4, 9-11, 14, 21, 27, 28, 30-37, 39, 48, 51, 52, 54, 56, 83-98, 105, 106, 113, 114, 120, 121, 126, 127, 132, 133, 138, 146, 147, 154, 161, 162, 167, 168, 173, 174, 182-184, 186, 189, 190, 197, 198, 206, 207, 214, 215, 223, 224, 230, 231, 239, 240, 245, 246, 252, 253, 260, 261, 266, 271, 272, 276, 277, 282, 283, 289, 290, 295, 296, 301, 302, 309, 310, 316, 317, 323, 324, 329, 330, 336, 337, 341, 342, 346, 347, 353, 354, 360, 361, 367, 368, 372, 373, 378, 392, 401, 403-415, 431, 436. 2 of 9 202209200623 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021008184 E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 2. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs: 5-7, 15, 17-20, 22-25, 38, 40-44, 49, 60-82, 175, 192, 194, 199, 200, 218, 236, 383, 389, 390, 398, 399. 3. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraphs: 8, 12, 16. 4. Admit the allegations against the County Defendants and deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 13. 5. Deny as to the County Defendants and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs: 26, 29, 45-47, 50, 53, 55, 57-59, 99-104, 107-112, 115-119, 122-125, 128-131, 134-137, 139-145, 148-153, 155-160, 163-166, 169-172, 176-181, 185, 187, 188, 191, 193, 195, 196, 201-205, 208-213, 216, 217, 219-222, 225-229, 232-235, 237, 238, 241-244, 247-251, 254-259, 262-265, 267- 270, 273-275, 278-281, 284-288, 291-294, 297-300, 303-308, 311-315, 318-322, 325-328, 331-335, 338-340, 343-345, 348-352, 355-359, 362-366, 369-371, 374-377, 380-382, 384- 388, 391, 394-397, 400, 430, 432-435. 6. Deny the un-numbered paragraph between paragraphs 154 and 155. 7. Deny that the County Defendants wrongly arrested Wilt and deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 236. 8. Respond to paragraphs 379, 393, 402, 429, as responded to elsewhere herein. 9. Respond to paragraphs 416-428, 437-439, by denying that said paragraphs set forth any allegations or claims against the County Defendants, deny said paragraphs as to the County Defendants and otherwise deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in said paragraphs. 10. Any allegation set forth in the Complaint that is not addressed above is denied. 2 3 of 9 202209200623 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021008184 E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 1st Affirmative Defense 1. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted as against the County Defendants under either Federal or New York State law. 2nd Affirmative Defense 2. Plaintiffs’ culpable conduct, contributory negligence, and/or assumption of risk caused the damages alleged in the Complaint. 3rd Affirmative Defense 3. If plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages, those damages should be diminished in the proportion that the culpable conduct attributable to the plaintiffs bears to the culpable conduct that caused the damages. 4th Affirmative Defense 4. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 5th Affirmative Defense 5. The damages alleged in the Complaint were caused by the culpable conduct and/or negligence of third parties, including but not limited to the City of Rochester and/or the Rochester Police Department, and some of the protestors, whose acts or omissions were not foreseeable by the County Defendants, and which constitute an intervening or superseding cause that precludes liability on the part of the County Defendants as a matter of law and/or requires a reduction of any damages awarded against the County Defendants. 6th Affirmative Defense 6. Any use of force by the County Defendants, including unnamed Richard Roes, was objectively reasonable and justified under New York State and Federal Law. 7th Affirmative Defense 7. Any use of force did not rise to the level of any constitutional violation and/or was reasonable and necessary. 3 4 of 9 202209200623 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021008184 E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 8th Affirmative Defense 8. The County Defendants, including any unnamed Richard Roes, are entitled to good faith immunity and discretionary immunity from suit. 9th Affirmative Defense 9. The County Defendants, including any unnamed Richard Roes, did not violate any clearly established right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. 10th Affirmative Defense 10. Any conduct of the County Defendants, including any unnamed Richard Roes, was justified in the circumstances, was privileged conduct in the performance of police function, was supported by probable cause, and was reasonably necessary to the performance of their duties and in accordance with requirements of law. 11th Affirmative Defense 11. The County Defendants did not authorize, condone, permit, or ratify any alleged improper or malicious conduct of the part of any person or adopt any policy condoning such conduct. 12th Affirmative Defense 12. Punitive damages are not available against the Monroe County Sheriff in his official capacity. 13th Affirmative Defense 13. The Amended Complaint fails to allege facts that any of the County Defendants acted maliciously, wantonly, or in a manner which manifested a gross deviation from the standard of conduct which a reasonable person would follow, and has therefore failed to allege facts upon which an award of punitive damages could be granted as a matter of law. 14th Affirmative Defense 14. The Sheriff in his official capacity have governmental immunity from liability for the 4 5 of 9 202209200623 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021008184 E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 damages alleged in the Complaint. 15th Affirmative Defense 15. If the damages for which the plaintiffs seek recovery were caused by the culpable conduct or negligence of any party other than the plaintiffs or the County Defendants, then they were caused in part by the culpable conduct and/or negligence of the defendants other than the County Defendants. If the plaintiffs recover a judgment against the County Defendants, then the County Defendants are entitled to indemnification implied by operation of law, from these other defendants, in the full amount of such judgment together with costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees. 16th Affirmative Defense 16. Any duty attributable to performing police functions, or to employ, train, or equip a law enforcement force or an individual law enforcement officer, is a duty to the general public and not a duty to any particular individual upon which liability may be premised unless a special duty is established. There was no special duty between any of the plaintiffs and any of the County Defendants. 17th Affirmative Defense 17. The doctrine of respondeat superior is unavailable under New York State law as a basis for imposing liability on the Sheriff for the alleged acts of Sheriff’s deputies who were engaged in a criminal justice function. 18th Affirmative Defense 18. The doctrine of respondeat superior is unavailable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 as a basis for imposing liability on the Sheriff for the conduct of the Sheriff’s deputies. 19th Affirmative Defense 19. Any recovery by plaintiffs is subject to reduction, after trial, for collateral source payments made or to be made for economic loss pursuant to CPLR §4545. 20th Affirmative Defense 5 6 of 9 202209200623 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021008184 E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 20. In the event that the liability of the County Defendants are found to be 50% or less of the total liability assigned to all persons and entities liable, the liability of the County Defendants to the plaintiffs for her non-economic loss shall not exceed the County Defendants’ equitable share determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person and entity causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss. If the plaintiffs recover a verdict against the County Defendants, the County Defendants are entitled to limited liability pursuant to Article 16 of the CPLR. 21st Affirmative Defense 21. That the injuries alleged in the Complaint were caused or occasioned solely, or in part, by the negligent, reckless, intentional, or otherwise wrongful conduct, including both acts and omissions, attributable to a third party, whose acts or omissions were not foreseeable by the County Defendants and constitute an intervening cause which precludes liability on the part of the County Defendants as a matter of law. 22nd Affirmative Defense 22. That punitive damages cannot be awarded against a municipality or any individuals whom a municipality is required to indemnify. 23rd Affirmative Defense 23. In the event the Complaint alleges the County Defendants undertook a special duty to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs did not reasonably rely thereon and/or any such reliance was unreasonable or misplaced. 24th Affirmative Defense 24. If the damages for which the plaintiffs seek recovery were caused by the culpable conduct or negligence of any parties other than the plaintiffs or the County Defendants, they were caused in part by the culpable conduct and/or negligence of the defendants other than the County Defendants. If the plaintiffs recover a judgment against the County Defendants, then the County 6 7 of 9 202209200623 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021008184 E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 Defendants are entitled to contribution pursuant to Article 14 of the New York CPLR and state and federal law, from these other defendants, in the full amount of such judgment together with costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees. WHEREFORE, the County Defendants demand judgment dismissing the Amended Complaint, together with costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: September 20, 2022 JOHN P. BRINGEWATT, MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY Attorney for the County Defendants Adam M. Clark, Deputy County Attorney 307 County Office Building 39 West Main Street, Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: 585.753.1374 E-Mail: adamclark@monroecounty.gov To: All Counsel of Record, by ECF 7 8 of 9 202209200623 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021008184 E2021008184 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2022 01:06 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2022 VERIFICATION Adam M. Clark, Esq. states under penalties of perjury that: I am a Deputy County Attorney for the County of Monroe, the public benefit corporation named in the foregoing Answer. I have read the foregoing Answer and I know its contents. The Answer is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. This verification is made pursuant to CPLR §3020(d)(2). Subscribed and affirmed on September 20, 2022 Adam M. Clark 8 9 of 9