Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM INDEX NO. E2021005118
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.
Receipt # 3129615
Book Page CIVIL
Return To: No. Pages: 20
JASON ANTHONY BOTTICELLI
Instrument: EXHIBIT(S)
Control #: 202207080805
Index #: E2021005118
Date: 07/08/2022
Karnisky, Robert A. Time: 1:36:48 PM
Karnisky, Paula A.
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation
Alray Construction Corp.
Armstrong International, Inc.
Armstrong Pumps Inc.
Aurora Pump Company
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
202207080805 Index #
INDEX : E2021005118
NO. E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
Exhibit B
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
_______________________________________________________ SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
In Re: Seventh Judicial District
Asbestos Litigation
_______________________________________________________
This Document Applies to: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CROSS-CLAIM OF WATTS WATER
COUNTY OF MONROE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
______________________________________________
Index No. E2021005118
ROBERT A. KARNISKY and PAULA KARNISKY,
his spouse,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as
successor by merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al.
Defendants.
Defendant, WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.1, ("Watts"), by and
through its attorneys, GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, as and for its
1. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
allegations as they pertain to this answering defendant contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
1
This answer and affirmative defenses are submitted solely on behalf of Watts Water Technologies, Inc., in its
individual capacity. Watts understands that separate counsel will be appearing for Watts Water Technologies, Inc.,
sued as successor in interest to Mueller Steam
claims as to Mueller, whether as an alleged successor in interest to Mueller or otherwise.
23710177
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 109 of the Complaint.
2. Denies the allegations as they pertain to this answering defendant
contained in paragraphs 2, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 110 of the Complaint.
3. In response to paragraphs 54, 70, 76, 82 and 108 of the Complaint, this
answering defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in this Answer.
4. As to the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint, admits
that this answering defendant is a foreign business corporation with its principle place of
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
5. The claims alleged in the Complaint against this answering defendant are
barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
6. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action against this answering
defendant.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
7. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
8. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
9. This Court is not the proper venue for this matter.
- 2 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
10. aim is barred under applicable state and federal law.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
11. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs have unduly delayed the bringing
of this claim to the prejudice of this answering defendant; therefore, the same is barred by the
Doctrine of Laches.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
12. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs claims are barred by the operation
of the Worker's Compensation Law of the State of New York.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
13. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs injuries and damages were
proximately caused by or contributed to by the negligence of other parties, including, but not
limited to, the employers and fellow workers of plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, and the labor
organization to which he belonged.
AS AND FOR AN TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
14. The Complaint fails to state a claim against this answering defendant upon
which punitive damages can be granted.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
15. The liability of this answering defendant, if any, constitutes less than fifty
Therefore, pursuant to Article 16 of the CPLR, the liability of this answering defendant, if any, is
limited to its equitable share of the total liability, if any, to be established in the instant action.
- 3 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
16. The Complaint fails to state in sufficient detail the circumstances
constituting the alleged misrepresentation, fraud, concealment, deceit and conspiracy involving
this answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
17. If it is determined that the Laws of New York, 1986 c.682 (effective July
8, 1986) apply to the causes of action asserted by plaintiffs against this answering defendant in
this lawsuit, the aforementioned statute violates both the United States and New York State
Constitutions as applied to this defendant.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
18. Plaintiffs demand for punitive damages is barred by the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York.
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
19. If it is proven at trial that any product attributable to this answering
defendant was furnished to said plaintiff employers, and said plaintiff was
exposed to the product, all of which is expressly denied, then any products attributable to this
answering defendant and to which said plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, may have been exposed were
furnished in strict conformity to the specifications furnished by the U.S. Government and/or said
plaintiff employers.
AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
20. That to the extent that any of the products for which liability is charged
herein to this answering defendant, which liability is denied, were modified, assembled, altered,
- 4 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
quantified or in any way materially varied, which same may be causally related to the claims of
plaintiffs, the action of plaintiffs is barred herein.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
21. If the Court finds that any misuse, abuse, mistreatment and/or
misapplication of the product caused and/or contributed to the alleged damages or injuries to
plaintiffs, then this answering defendant requests that the amount of damages which might be
recoverable shall be diminished by the proportion which the same misuse, abuse, mistreatment
and/or misapplication, attributed to the plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, his co-workers and/or
employers bears to the conduct which caused the alleged damages or injuries.
AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
22. That the cause of action pleaded in the Complaint insofar as it asserts an
alleged cause of action for express and/or implied warranties and the alleged breaches thereof, as
against this answering defendant, is legally insufficient by reason of the failure to allege privity
of contract and/or privity of warranties between the plaintiffs and this answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
23. That to the extent that the use, application, employment, surrounding
conditions, safety precautions and other circumstances attendant upon the material allegedly used
by plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, were determined, controlled, selected or limited by their employers
or by others for whose acts, omissions or breach this answering defendant is not liable, the
Complaint is barred, in whole or in part.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
24. At all material times, the state of medical, industrial and scientific
knowledge was such that there was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any
unavoidably unsafe, inherently dangerous or hazardous character or nature of asbestos products.
- 5 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
Accordingly, even if this answering defendant had sold any asbestos-containing product to
plaintiff, Robert Karnisky employers, which this answering defendant specifically denies, this
answering defendant had no duty to know of such character or nature or to warn plaintiff or
others similarly situated.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
25. Upon information and belief, this answering defendant conformed to the
scientific knowledge and data available in the industry and fulfilled its obligations, if any, and its
activities and undertakings, if any, were conducted in a reasonable fashion, without recklessness,
malice or wantonness, and the plaintiffs may not recover herein any exemplary damages or
punitive damages against this answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
26. Proceeding in this matter without Johns-Manville, Unarco, Amatex, Pacor,
Forty-Eight Insulations and/or Standard Insulations, and all other entities in bankruptcy relating
l rights.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
27. Any recovery by the plaintiffs herein must be reduced by collateral source
payments pursuant to CPLR Section 4545.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
28. To the extent plaintiffs seek to maintain a claim for relief on behalf of any
decedent, said plaintiffs lack capacity and/or standing to maintain such claim for relief against
answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
29. Plaintiffs lack the necessary standing to maintain this action.
- 6 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
30. Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, injury was not foreseeable.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
31.
policy, since social utility and benefit of asbestos-containing products outweighed the risk at the
time of Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky alleged exposure.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
32.
and indispensable parties.
AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
33. Relief is barred by virtue of the doctrines of estoppel, collateral estoppel,
and waiver.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
34. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not
be maintained because of res judicata.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
35.
- 7 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
36. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not
be maintained because of discharge in bankruptcy.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
37. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not
be maintained because of payment.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
38. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not
be maintained because of release.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
39. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs have made claims concerning their
alleged injuries in other matters, including but not limited to claims submitted to various trusts,
answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
40. This Court lacks jurisdiction over answering defendant by reason of
improper service of process.
- 8 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
41. Economic and consequential damages are not properly recoverable in tort
actions, including actions based on negligence or strict liability.
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
42. Defendant asserts the defense of forum non-conveniens and reserves the
right to seek dismissal of the complaint.
AS AND FOR A FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
43. If it is determined that plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, used asbestos containing
products or components of these products and it is determined that said products or components
were sold by or on behalf of the United States of America, then answering defendant is entitled
to any sovereign or governmental immunity available to the United States of America.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
44. Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, and/or his employers were a sophisticated user
and were fully aware of any and all potentially dangerous conditions.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
45. To the extent plaintiffs, Robert Karnisky, was exposed to any product
containing asbestos as a result of conduct by Defendant, which is denied, said exposure was de
minimis and not a substantial contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease which plaintiff,
- 9 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
Robert Karnisky, not actionable at law or
equity.
AS AND FOR A FOURTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
46. Exposure by plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, to asbestos fibers allegedly
attributable to answering defendant was so de minimis so as to be insufficient as a matter of law
to enable plaintiffs to establish to a reasonable degree of probability that the products are capable
of causing injury or damages and must be considered speculative as a matter of law.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
47. Finished or otherwise encapsulated asbestos-containing products are not
unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
49. Plaintiffs failed to provide any timely notice to answering defendant of
any alleged defect in any product which Defendant allegedly supplied or manufactured.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
50. At the time any product left answering d
practical and/or technically feasible safer alternative design that would have prevented the harm
without substantially impairing the reasonably anticipated and intended function of that product.
- 10 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
AS AND FOR A FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
51. Defendant did not have a duty to test any asbestos products which it might
have sold, used or received from a third party.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
52. To the extent that plaintiffs are unable to identify any manufacturer of any
product which allegedly caused plaintiff, Robert Karnisky injuries, plaintiffs cannot state a
claim upon which relief may be granted because that failure would violate answering d
constitutional rights: (1) to substantive and procedural due process of law and equal protection
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the New York
Constitution; and (2) protection against the taking of private property for public use without just
compensation guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by
the New York Constitution.
AS AND FOR A FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
53. Upon information and belief, plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, assumed the risks
and hazards of injury and damage to themselves from the occurrences alleged in the Complaint.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
54. Upon information and belief, the occurrences alleged in the Complaint and
the damages flowing therefrom, resulted solely or in part from the negligent acts or omissions to
act on the part of the plaintiffs, Robert Karnisky.
- 11 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
55. Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, did not directly or indirectly purchase any
asbestos-containing products or materials from this answering defendant, and plaintiffs neither
received nor relied upon any representation or warranty allegedly made by this answering
defendant.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
WATTS ALLEGES:
56. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs failed to mitigate or otherwise act
to lessen or reduce the injuries or disabilities claimed in the Complaint.
AS AND FOR A FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
AND BY WAY OF CROSS-CLAIM, WATTS ALLEGES:
57. This answering defendant denies specifically that, during the periods of
exposure alleged in the Complaint by the plaintiffs, it mined, processed, manufactured,
produced, designed, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered, sold
and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce a substantial and/or any percentage of the
asbestos products to which plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, was caused to come into contact and
which plaintiff was caused to breathe, inhale and digest and which thereby caused the plaintiffs
injuries and resulting damages alleged in the Complaint herein.
58. In the event the Court finds after trial that any misuse, abuse, mistreatment
or misapplication of the said products by the other defendants caused or contributed to the
alleged damages or injury to the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover a judgment
against this answering defendant, then this answering defendant is entitled to contribution from
any or all such other defendants.
59. If plaintiffs were caused to sustain damages through any carelessness,
recklessness, negligence or culpable conduct, other than that of plaintiff, Robert Karnisky own
- 12 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
negligence or culpable conduct, in the manufacture, distribution or use of any product, breaches
of warranty, either expressed or implied, or in strict liability in tort, said damages will have been
caused and brought about by reason of the carelessness, recklessness, negligence and/or culpable
conduct in the manufacture, distribution or use of the product, breaches of warranty, either
expressed or implied, or in the strict liability in tort of the other defendants.
60. By reason of the foregoing, if the plaintiffs should recover a judgment
against this answering defendant, by operation of law or otherwise, this answering defendant will
be entitled to judgment and indemnity over and against each of the other defendants, their agents,
servants and/or employees, by reason of their carelessness, recklessness, negligence, culpable
conduct or negligence in the manufacture, distribution or use of the product, breaches of
warranty, either expressed or implied, or in strict liability of tort, for the amount of any such
recovery or a portion thereof, in accordance with principles of law and fault apportionment,
along with costs, disbursements and the reasonable expenses of the investigation and defense of
WHEREFORE, this answering defendant demands judgment as follows:
A. Dismissing plaintiffs Complaint, together with the costs and
disbursements of this action;
B. Determining the ultimate rights and responsibilities among the defendants;
C. Granting judgment in favor of this answering defendant over and against
the other defendants as set forth above for the amount of the recovery against this answering
defendant or such part thereof as may be determined, together with costs and disbursements of
this action; and
D. Such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
- 13 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
Dated: Buffalo, New York
January 10, 2022 GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
By: _______________________________
Joseph J. Welter, Esq.
Jason A. Botticelli, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant WATTS WATER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC
665 Main Street, Suite 400
Buffalo, New York 14203
(716) 566-5426
TO: Sean Esford, Esq.
Lipsitz, Ponterio & Comerford, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
424 Main Street, Suite 1500
Buffalo, NY 14202
CC: All Known Defense Counsel (via NYSCEF)
- 14 -
31983949.v2
202207080805 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2021005118
E2021005118
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022
VERIFICATION
JASON A. BOTTICELLI, being duly sworn herein says:
1. That he is one of the attorneys for the defendant, WATTS WATER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC, in this action; that he has read the answer to the verified complaint and
knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to the matters
therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and as to those matters, he believes them
to be true.
2. That the reason this verification is made by the deponent and not by defendant,
WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is that the answering defendant is outside the
County of Erie where the deponent maintains his office.
3.
the correspondence with WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and correspondences and
conversations with the representatives of said defendant, and from reports of investigation of the
on.
Dated: Buffalo, New York
January 10, 2022 GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
By: _______________________________
Joseph J. Welter, Esq.
Jason A. Botticelli, Esq.
Attor
Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM INDEX NO. E2021005118 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT. Receipt # 3129615 Book Page CIVIL Return To: No. Pages: 20 JASON ANTHONY BOTTICELLI Instrument: EXHIBIT(S) Control #: 202207080805 Index #: E2021005118 Date: 07/08/2022 Karnisky, Robert A. Time: 1:36:48 PM Karnisky, Paula A. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation Alray Construction Corp. Armstrong International, Inc. Armstrong Pumps Inc. Aurora Pump Company 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 202207080805 Index # INDEX : E2021005118 NO. E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 Exhibit B 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT _______________________________________________________ SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION In Re: Seventh Judicial District Asbestos Litigation _______________________________________________________ This Document Applies to: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CROSS-CLAIM OF WATTS WATER COUNTY OF MONROE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ______________________________________________ Index No. E2021005118 ROBERT A. KARNISKY and PAULA KARNISKY, his spouse, Plaintiffs, vs. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor by merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al. Defendants. Defendant, WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.1, ("Watts"), by and through its attorneys, GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, as and for its 1. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations as they pertain to this answering defendant contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 1 This answer and affirmative defenses are submitted solely on behalf of Watts Water Technologies, Inc., in its individual capacity. Watts understands that separate counsel will be appearing for Watts Water Technologies, Inc., sued as successor in interest to Mueller Steam claims as to Mueller, whether as an alleged successor in interest to Mueller or otherwise. 23710177 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 109 of the Complaint. 2. Denies the allegations as they pertain to this answering defendant contained in paragraphs 2, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 110 of the Complaint. 3. In response to paragraphs 54, 70, 76, 82 and 108 of the Complaint, this answering defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in this Answer. 4. As to the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint, admits that this answering defendant is a foreign business corporation with its principle place of AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 5. The claims alleged in the Complaint against this answering defendant are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 6. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action against this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 7. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 8. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over answering defendant. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 9. This Court is not the proper venue for this matter. - 2 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 10. aim is barred under applicable state and federal law. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 11. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs have unduly delayed the bringing of this claim to the prejudice of this answering defendant; therefore, the same is barred by the Doctrine of Laches. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 12. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs claims are barred by the operation of the Worker's Compensation Law of the State of New York. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 13. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs injuries and damages were proximately caused by or contributed to by the negligence of other parties, including, but not limited to, the employers and fellow workers of plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, and the labor organization to which he belonged. AS AND FOR AN TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 14. The Complaint fails to state a claim against this answering defendant upon which punitive damages can be granted. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 15. The liability of this answering defendant, if any, constitutes less than fifty Therefore, pursuant to Article 16 of the CPLR, the liability of this answering defendant, if any, is limited to its equitable share of the total liability, if any, to be established in the instant action. - 3 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 16. The Complaint fails to state in sufficient detail the circumstances constituting the alleged misrepresentation, fraud, concealment, deceit and conspiracy involving this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 17. If it is determined that the Laws of New York, 1986 c.682 (effective July 8, 1986) apply to the causes of action asserted by plaintiffs against this answering defendant in this lawsuit, the aforementioned statute violates both the United States and New York State Constitutions as applied to this defendant. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 18. Plaintiffs demand for punitive damages is barred by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York. AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 19. If it is proven at trial that any product attributable to this answering defendant was furnished to said plaintiff employers, and said plaintiff was exposed to the product, all of which is expressly denied, then any products attributable to this answering defendant and to which said plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, may have been exposed were furnished in strict conformity to the specifications furnished by the U.S. Government and/or said plaintiff employers. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 20. That to the extent that any of the products for which liability is charged herein to this answering defendant, which liability is denied, were modified, assembled, altered, - 4 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 quantified or in any way materially varied, which same may be causally related to the claims of plaintiffs, the action of plaintiffs is barred herein. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 21. If the Court finds that any misuse, abuse, mistreatment and/or misapplication of the product caused and/or contributed to the alleged damages or injuries to plaintiffs, then this answering defendant requests that the amount of damages which might be recoverable shall be diminished by the proportion which the same misuse, abuse, mistreatment and/or misapplication, attributed to the plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, his co-workers and/or employers bears to the conduct which caused the alleged damages or injuries. AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 22. That the cause of action pleaded in the Complaint insofar as it asserts an alleged cause of action for express and/or implied warranties and the alleged breaches thereof, as against this answering defendant, is legally insufficient by reason of the failure to allege privity of contract and/or privity of warranties between the plaintiffs and this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 23. That to the extent that the use, application, employment, surrounding conditions, safety precautions and other circumstances attendant upon the material allegedly used by plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, were determined, controlled, selected or limited by their employers or by others for whose acts, omissions or breach this answering defendant is not liable, the Complaint is barred, in whole or in part. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 24. At all material times, the state of medical, industrial and scientific knowledge was such that there was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any unavoidably unsafe, inherently dangerous or hazardous character or nature of asbestos products. - 5 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 Accordingly, even if this answering defendant had sold any asbestos-containing product to plaintiff, Robert Karnisky employers, which this answering defendant specifically denies, this answering defendant had no duty to know of such character or nature or to warn plaintiff or others similarly situated. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 25. Upon information and belief, this answering defendant conformed to the scientific knowledge and data available in the industry and fulfilled its obligations, if any, and its activities and undertakings, if any, were conducted in a reasonable fashion, without recklessness, malice or wantonness, and the plaintiffs may not recover herein any exemplary damages or punitive damages against this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 26. Proceeding in this matter without Johns-Manville, Unarco, Amatex, Pacor, Forty-Eight Insulations and/or Standard Insulations, and all other entities in bankruptcy relating l rights. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 27. Any recovery by the plaintiffs herein must be reduced by collateral source payments pursuant to CPLR Section 4545. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 28. To the extent plaintiffs seek to maintain a claim for relief on behalf of any decedent, said plaintiffs lack capacity and/or standing to maintain such claim for relief against answering defendant. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 29. Plaintiffs lack the necessary standing to maintain this action. - 6 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 30. Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, injury was not foreseeable. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 31. policy, since social utility and benefit of asbestos-containing products outweighed the risk at the time of Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky alleged exposure. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 32. and indispensable parties. AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 33. Relief is barred by virtue of the doctrines of estoppel, collateral estoppel, and waiver. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 34. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of res judicata. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 35. - 7 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 36. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of discharge in bankruptcy. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 37. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of payment. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 38. Upon information and belief, some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of release. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 39. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs have made claims concerning their alleged injuries in other matters, including but not limited to claims submitted to various trusts, answering defendant. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 40. This Court lacks jurisdiction over answering defendant by reason of improper service of process. - 8 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 41. Economic and consequential damages are not properly recoverable in tort actions, including actions based on negligence or strict liability. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 42. Defendant asserts the defense of forum non-conveniens and reserves the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. AS AND FOR A FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 43. If it is determined that plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, used asbestos containing products or components of these products and it is determined that said products or components were sold by or on behalf of the United States of America, then answering defendant is entitled to any sovereign or governmental immunity available to the United States of America. AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 44. Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, and/or his employers were a sophisticated user and were fully aware of any and all potentially dangerous conditions. AS AND FOR A FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 45. To the extent plaintiffs, Robert Karnisky, was exposed to any product containing asbestos as a result of conduct by Defendant, which is denied, said exposure was de minimis and not a substantial contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease which plaintiff, - 9 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 Robert Karnisky, not actionable at law or equity. AS AND FOR A FOURTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 46. Exposure by plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, to asbestos fibers allegedly attributable to answering defendant was so de minimis so as to be insufficient as a matter of law to enable plaintiffs to establish to a reasonable degree of probability that the products are capable of causing injury or damages and must be considered speculative as a matter of law. AS AND FOR A FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 47. Finished or otherwise encapsulated asbestos-containing products are not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. AS AND FOR A FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 49. Plaintiffs failed to provide any timely notice to answering defendant of any alleged defect in any product which Defendant allegedly supplied or manufactured. AS AND FOR A FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 50. At the time any product left answering d practical and/or technically feasible safer alternative design that would have prevented the harm without substantially impairing the reasonably anticipated and intended function of that product. - 10 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 51. Defendant did not have a duty to test any asbestos products which it might have sold, used or received from a third party. AS AND FOR A FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 52. To the extent that plaintiffs are unable to identify any manufacturer of any product which allegedly caused plaintiff, Robert Karnisky injuries, plaintiffs cannot state a claim upon which relief may be granted because that failure would violate answering d constitutional rights: (1) to substantive and procedural due process of law and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution; and (2) protection against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by the New York Constitution. AS AND FOR A FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 53. Upon information and belief, plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, assumed the risks and hazards of injury and damage to themselves from the occurrences alleged in the Complaint. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 54. Upon information and belief, the occurrences alleged in the Complaint and the damages flowing therefrom, resulted solely or in part from the negligent acts or omissions to act on the part of the plaintiffs, Robert Karnisky. - 11 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 55. Plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, did not directly or indirectly purchase any asbestos-containing products or materials from this answering defendant, and plaintiffs neither received nor relied upon any representation or warranty allegedly made by this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WATTS ALLEGES: 56. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries or disabilities claimed in the Complaint. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, AND BY WAY OF CROSS-CLAIM, WATTS ALLEGES: 57. This answering defendant denies specifically that, during the periods of exposure alleged in the Complaint by the plaintiffs, it mined, processed, manufactured, produced, designed, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered, sold and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce a substantial and/or any percentage of the asbestos products to which plaintiff, Robert Karnisky, was caused to come into contact and which plaintiff was caused to breathe, inhale and digest and which thereby caused the plaintiffs injuries and resulting damages alleged in the Complaint herein. 58. In the event the Court finds after trial that any misuse, abuse, mistreatment or misapplication of the said products by the other defendants caused or contributed to the alleged damages or injury to the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover a judgment against this answering defendant, then this answering defendant is entitled to contribution from any or all such other defendants. 59. If plaintiffs were caused to sustain damages through any carelessness, recklessness, negligence or culpable conduct, other than that of plaintiff, Robert Karnisky own - 12 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 negligence or culpable conduct, in the manufacture, distribution or use of any product, breaches of warranty, either expressed or implied, or in strict liability in tort, said damages will have been caused and brought about by reason of the carelessness, recklessness, negligence and/or culpable conduct in the manufacture, distribution or use of the product, breaches of warranty, either expressed or implied, or in the strict liability in tort of the other defendants. 60. By reason of the foregoing, if the plaintiffs should recover a judgment against this answering defendant, by operation of law or otherwise, this answering defendant will be entitled to judgment and indemnity over and against each of the other defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, by reason of their carelessness, recklessness, negligence, culpable conduct or negligence in the manufacture, distribution or use of the product, breaches of warranty, either expressed or implied, or in strict liability of tort, for the amount of any such recovery or a portion thereof, in accordance with principles of law and fault apportionment, along with costs, disbursements and the reasonable expenses of the investigation and defense of WHEREFORE, this answering defendant demands judgment as follows: A. Dismissing plaintiffs Complaint, together with the costs and disbursements of this action; B. Determining the ultimate rights and responsibilities among the defendants; C. Granting judgment in favor of this answering defendant over and against the other defendants as set forth above for the amount of the recovery against this answering defendant or such part thereof as may be determined, together with costs and disbursements of this action; and D. Such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. - 13 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 Dated: Buffalo, New York January 10, 2022 GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP By: _______________________________ Joseph J. Welter, Esq. Jason A. Botticelli, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC 665 Main Street, Suite 400 Buffalo, New York 14203 (716) 566-5426 TO: Sean Esford, Esq. Lipsitz, Ponterio & Comerford, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs 424 Main Street, Suite 1500 Buffalo, NY 14202 CC: All Known Defense Counsel (via NYSCEF) - 14 - 31983949.v2 202207080805 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2021005118 E2021005118 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/08/2022 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/08/2022 VERIFICATION JASON A. BOTTICELLI, being duly sworn herein says: 1. That he is one of the attorneys for the defendant, WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, in this action; that he has read the answer to the verified complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and as to those matters, he believes them to be true. 2. That the reason this verification is made by the deponent and not by defendant, WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is that the answering defendant is outside the County of Erie where the deponent maintains his office. 3. the correspondence with WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and correspondences and conversations with the representatives of said defendant, and from reports of investigation of the on. Dated: Buffalo, New York January 10, 2022 GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP By: _______________________________ Joseph J. Welter, Esq. Jason A. Botticelli, Esq. Attor