Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------- x
MARJAM SUPPLY CO., INC., : Index No.: 524915/2020
:
Plaintiff, : VERIFIED ANSWER
:
:
-against- :
:
CONSTRUTECH SERVICES LLC, :
JUNIOR MOURAD, KARINA MOURAD, :
110 BRIDGE STREET REALTY CORP., and :
JOHN DOES “1” through “10” being and intended :
:
to be those persons or entities with an interest against:
the real property, :
:
Defendants. :
----------------------------------------------------------------- x
Defendants, Construtech Services LLC (“Construtech”), Junior Mourad, and Karina
Mourad (collectively “Defendants”, unless referred to as individually), by and through their
attorneys, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, as and for a Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s
Verified Complaint set forth, upon information and belief, as follows:
1. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “1” of the Verified Complaint.
2. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “2” of the Verified Complaint.
3. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph “3” of the Verified Complaint, but
state that Construtech’s principal place of business is located 269 Dekalb Avenue, Bridgeport,
Connecticut 006607.
4. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph “4” of the Verified Complaint.
5. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph “5” of the Verified Complaint.
1 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
6. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “6” of the Verified Complaint.
7. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “7” of the Verified Complaint.
8. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “8” of the Verified Complaint.
9. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “9” of the Verified Complaint.
10. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “10” of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR A RESPONSE
TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
11. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “11” of the Verified Complaint,
Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “10” of the Verified
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
12. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “12” of the Verified Complaint.
13. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “13” of the Verified Complaint.
14. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “14” of the Verified Complaint.
15. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “15” of the Verified Complaint.
16. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “16” of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR A RESPONSE
TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
17. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “17” of the Verified Complaint,
Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “16” of the Verified
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
18. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “18” of the Verified Complaint.
2 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
19. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “19” of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR A RESPONSE
TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
20. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “17” of the Verified Complaint,
Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “19” of the Verified
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
21. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “21” of the Verified Complaint.
22. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “22” of the Verified Complaint.
23. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “23” of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR A RESPONSE
TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “24” of the Verified Complaint,
Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “23” of the Verified
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
25. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “25” of the Verified Complaint.
26. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “26” of the Verified Complaint.
27. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “27” of the Verified Complaint.
28. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “28” of the Verified Complaint.
29. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “29” of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR A RESPONSE
TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
30. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “30” of the Verified Complaint,
Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “29” of the Verified
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
3 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
31. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “30” of the Verified Complaint.
32. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “32” of the Verified Complaint.
33. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “33” of the Verified Complaint.
34. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “34” of the Verified Complaint.
AS AND FOR A RESPONSE
TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
35. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “35” of the Verified Complaint,
Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “34” of the Verified
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
36. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “36” of the Verified Complaint.
37. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “37” of the Verified Complaint.
38. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “38” of the Verified Complaint.
39. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “39” of the Verified Complaint.
40. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “40” of the Verified Complaint.
41. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “41” of the Verified Complaint.
42. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “42” of the Verified Complaint.
4 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
43. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations
contained in Paragraph “43” of the Verified Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AS AND FOR A
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
AS AND FOR A
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based
upon the applicable agreement between the parties and the documents exchanged therein.
AS AND FOR A
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by
Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages.
AS AND FOR A
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by
the doctrines of waiver, laches and/or estoppel.
AS AND FOR A
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by
the applicable statutes of limitations.
AS AND FOR A
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred for its failure to comply with New York Lien Law.
5 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
AS AND FOR A
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendants due to Plaintiff’s
defective service of process.
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
8. Defendants reserve the right to amend, add or otherwise modify the instant Verified
Answer as may become appropriate after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
Dated: New York, New York
October 12, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
Suleman Malik, Esq.
Peter E. Strniste, Jr., Esq.
Virginia Trunkes, Esq.
1 Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Office Phone: 212-269-5500
Cell Phone: 631-617-3457
Email: smalik@grsm.com
Attorneys for Answering Defendants
Construtech Services LLC, Junior Mourad,
and Karina Mourad
TO: VIA NYSCEF
To All Parties Having Had
Recorded Representation on NYSCEF
6 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION
SULEMAN MALIK, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of this State,
affirms the following to be true:
I am associated with the law firm of GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP,
attorneys for the answering defendant in this action.
I have read the following Answer to the Complaint and know its contents. Its contents are
true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated to be alleged upon
information and belief. As to those matters which are alleged upon information and belief, I believe
them to be true. The grounds of my belief as to those matters which are not stated upon my own
knowledge are the contents of the file maintained in connection with this matter by my office.
This verification is made by me and not by the answering defendants since the answering
defendants’ principal place of business and/or residence is not located in the same county as my
office
Dated: New York, New York
October 12, 2022
Suleman Malik, Esq.
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------- x MARJAM SUPPLY CO., INC., : Index No.: 524915/2020 : Plaintiff, : VERIFIED ANSWER : : -against- : : CONSTRUTECH SERVICES LLC, : JUNIOR MOURAD, KARINA MOURAD, : 110 BRIDGE STREET REALTY CORP., and : JOHN DOES “1” through “10” being and intended : : to be those persons or entities with an interest against: the real property, : : Defendants. : ----------------------------------------------------------------- x Defendants, Construtech Services LLC (“Construtech”), Junior Mourad, and Karina Mourad (collectively “Defendants”, unless referred to as individually), by and through their attorneys, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, as and for a Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint set forth, upon information and belief, as follows: 1. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “1” of the Verified Complaint. 2. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “2” of the Verified Complaint. 3. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph “3” of the Verified Complaint, but state that Construtech’s principal place of business is located 269 Dekalb Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut 006607. 4. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph “4” of the Verified Complaint. 5. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph “5” of the Verified Complaint. 1 of 7 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 6. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “6” of the Verified Complaint. 7. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “7” of the Verified Complaint. 8. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “8” of the Verified Complaint. 9. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “9” of the Verified Complaint. 10. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “10” of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR A RESPONSE TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 11. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “11” of the Verified Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “10” of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 12. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “12” of the Verified Complaint. 13. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “13” of the Verified Complaint. 14. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “14” of the Verified Complaint. 15. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “15” of the Verified Complaint. 16. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “16” of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR A RESPONSE TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 17. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “17” of the Verified Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “16” of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 18. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “18” of the Verified Complaint. 2 of 7 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 19. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “19” of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR A RESPONSE TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 20. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “17” of the Verified Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “19” of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 21. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “21” of the Verified Complaint. 22. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “22” of the Verified Complaint. 23. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “23” of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR A RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “24” of the Verified Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “23” of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 25. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “25” of the Verified Complaint. 26. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “26” of the Verified Complaint. 27. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “27” of the Verified Complaint. 28. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “28” of the Verified Complaint. 29. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “29” of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR A RESPONSE TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 30. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “30” of the Verified Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “29” of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 3 of 7 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 31. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “30” of the Verified Complaint. 32. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “32” of the Verified Complaint. 33. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “33” of the Verified Complaint. 34. Deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph “34” of the Verified Complaint. AS AND FOR A RESPONSE TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 35. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph “35” of the Verified Complaint, Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “34” of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 36. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “36” of the Verified Complaint. 37. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “37” of the Verified Complaint. 38. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “38” of the Verified Complaint. 39. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “39” of the Verified Complaint. 40. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “40” of the Verified Complaint. 41. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “41” of the Verified Complaint. 42. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “42” of the Verified Complaint. 4 of 7 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 43. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph “43” of the Verified Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based upon the applicable agreement between the parties and the documents exchanged therein. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, laches and/or estoppel. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred for its failure to comply with New York Lien Law. 5 of 7 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendants due to Plaintiff’s defective service of process. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 8. Defendants reserve the right to amend, add or otherwise modify the instant Verified Answer as may become appropriate after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. Dated: New York, New York October 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Suleman Malik, Esq. Peter E. Strniste, Jr., Esq. Virginia Trunkes, Esq. 1 Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor New York, New York 10004 Office Phone: 212-269-5500 Cell Phone: 631-617-3457 Email: smalik@grsm.com Attorneys for Answering Defendants Construtech Services LLC, Junior Mourad, and Karina Mourad TO: VIA NYSCEF To All Parties Having Had Recorded Representation on NYSCEF 6 of 7 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 05:32 PM INDEX NO. 524915/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION SULEMAN MALIK, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of this State, affirms the following to be true: I am associated with the law firm of GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, attorneys for the answering defendant in this action. I have read the following Answer to the Complaint and know its contents. Its contents are true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief. As to those matters which are alleged upon information and belief, I believe them to be true. The grounds of my belief as to those matters which are not stated upon my own knowledge are the contents of the file maintained in connection with this matter by my office. This verification is made by me and not by the answering defendants since the answering defendants’ principal place of business and/or residence is not located in the same county as my office Dated: New York, New York October 12, 2022 Suleman Malik, Esq. 7 of 7