Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HARRY J. HAMPSON,
Plaintiff, Index No.: 606219/2021
-against- VERIFIED ANSWER
AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., n/k/a RHONE POULENC
AG COMPANY, n/k/a BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
PFIZER INC., (hereinafter referred to as “Pfizer”), by and through its counsel, RENZULLI
LAW FIRM, LLP, as and for its Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s Summons and Verified Complaint,
(hereinafter the “Complaint”), states upon information and belief as follows:
1. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with respect to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph “1” of the Complaint.
2. Pfizer denies knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraphs “2” through “23” of the Complaint with respect to defendants
other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “2” through “23” of the Complaint are
directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.
AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated
as “1” through “23” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to
the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “24” of the Complaint.
4. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraphs “25” through “43” of the Complaint with respect to
defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “25” through “43” of the
1 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this
Honorable Court.
AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated
as “1” through “43” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to
the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “44” of the Complaint.
6. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraphs “45” through “49” of the Complaint with respect to
defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “45” through “49” of the
Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this
Honorable Court.
AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated
as “1” through “49” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to
the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “50” of the Complaint.
8. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraphs “51” through “59” of the Complaint with respect to
defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “51” through “59” of the
Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this
Honorable Court.
2 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated
as “1” through “59” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to
the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “60” of the Complaint.
10. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraphs “61” through “70” of the Complaint with respect to
defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “61” through “70” of the
Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this
Honorable Court.
AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated
as “1” through “70” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to
the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “71” of the Complaint.
12. Pfizer denies each and every allegation in the Paragraphs designated as “72”
through “89” of the Complaint as they pertain to Pfizer and refers all questions of law to this
Honorable Court. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “72” through “89” of the Complaint with respect to
defendants other than Pfizer.
AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated
as “1” through “89” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to
the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “90” of the Complaint.
3 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
14. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraph “91” of the Complaint.
15. Pfizer denies each and every allegation in the Paragraph designated as “92” of the
Complaint as they pertain to Pfizer and refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. Pfizer
denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph “92” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Each and every Count of plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Pfizer upon
which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Pfizer, or over each and every count asserted
against Pfizer in plaintiff’s Complaint.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The injuries and/or illnesses, if any, sustained by plaintiff was caused or contributed to by
the fault, negligence and want of care on the part of plaintiff or on the part of others for whose acts
or omission or breach of legal duty Pfizer is not liable.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that plaintiff failed and neglected to maintain this action in a swift, diligent
and/or timely fashion, plaintiff’s claims against Pfizer are barred by laches.
4 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The injuries and/or illnesses of the plaintiff, if any, arose in whole or in part, out of the
risks, hazards and dangers incident to the occupations of plaintiff, all of which were open, obvious
and well known to the plaintiff, and any claims against Pfizer are therefore barred.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that the injuries and/or illnesses of plaintiff, if any, were caused or contributed
to, in whole or in part, by intervening and superseding causative factors, the claims against Pfizer
are barred.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that all of the alleged products were modified, altered, or in any way
materially varied, which may be causally related to the claims of plaintiff, plaintiff’s claims against
Pfizer are barred.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times material hereto, the state of the medical and industrial art was such that there
was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any unavoidable, unsafe, inherently
dangerous, or hazardous character or nature of asbestos-containing material when used in the
manner and purpose allegedly described by the plaintiff and, therefore, there was no duty on the
part of Pfizer to know of any such character or nature or to warn or protect plaintiff or others
similarly situated.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and/or illnesses through any
careless, recklessness, acts, omissions, negligence and/or breach of duty and/or warranty and/or
5 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
contract of Pfizer, plaintiff’s claims are barred by the exclusivity of plaintiff’s workers
compensation remedy.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the Statute of Frauds.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the doctrine waiver.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the doctrine of estoppel.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that plaintiff relies on New York Law L. 1986 C. 682 Section 4 as grounds
for maintaining this action, said section is unconstitutional and this action is time barred.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Insofar as the claims herein are premised on plaintiff’s claims accruing on or after
September 1, 1975 to recover damages attributable to personal injuries or for indemnification of
such damages, the amount of damages recoverable thereon must be diminished by reason of the
culpable conduct attributable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants herein, including their
comparative negligence and assumption or risk, in the proportion which the culpable conduct
attributable to plaintiff bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This action does not fall within any exception enumerated in N.Y. C.P.L.R. Article 16, and,
if liability of this defendant is found to be 50% or less of the total liability assigned to all persons,
the liability of this defendant shall not exceed this defendant’s equitable share determined in
6 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
accordance with the relative culpability of each person contributing to the total liability for non-
economic loss.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred because of plaintiff’s failure to join necessary and
indispensable parties.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer is not a party and/or real party in interest in connection with the claims asserted by
plaintiff.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff may not bring this action as he has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries and disabilities
alleged in the Complaint.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff contributed to the illnesses, either in whole or in part, by the use of tobacco
products and/or other substances, products, medication or drugs.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times relevant to this litigation, the agents, servants and/or employees of Pfizer used
proper methods in handling the products complained of and conducting its operations, in
conformity with available knowledge, state of the art, and research of the scientific and industrial
communities.
7 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, through
the operation of nature.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that the plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos product as a result of conduct
by Pfizer, which is denied, said exposure was de minimis and not a substantial contributing factor
to any asbestos-related disease which such plaintiff may have developed, thus requiring dismissal
of the claims against Pfizer.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Insofar as the Complaint seeks exemplary and/or punitive damages, each such claim is
barred by the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
and the New York State Constitution; by prescription of the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I,
Section 5 of the New York State Constitution prohibiting the imposition of excess fines; and by
the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied
to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 6 of the New York State
Constitution.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
All defenses which have been or will be asserted by other defendants in this action are
adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth at length herein as defenses of the
Complaint. In addition, Pfizer will rely upon any and all other further defenses which become
available or appear during discovery proceedings in this action and hereby respectfully reserves
the right to amend its answer for the purposes of asserting any such additional defenses.
8 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If the plaintiff sustained damages as alleged, such damages occurred while he was engaged
in activities into which he entered, knowing the hazard, risk and danger of the activities, and he/she
assumed the risks incidental and attended thereto.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No acts or omissions of Pfizer proximately caused any damages.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any asbestos-containing product that may have been present at the plaintiff’s job locations
was placed in any such locations and/or buildings upon specification, approval or at the instruction
of governmental or legislative agencies or bodies.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times alleged in the Complaint, Pfizer followed the plans, specifications and
contracts set by a governmental body and did not deviate from said plans, specifications and
contracts and is thus cloaked with immunity.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer is not liable to the plaintiff for the damages alleged in the Complaint because such
damages are excluded and not recoverable under express warranty.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer denies that the asbestos products alleged in the Complaint are products within the
meaning and scope of the Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A and, as such, the Complaint fails
to state a cause of action in strict products liability.
9 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer had no knowledge or reason to know of any alleged risks associated with asbestos
and/or asbestos-containing products at any time during the periods complained of.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff are due to an idiosyncratic reaction on the
part of the plaintiff. As such, Pfizer is not responsible therefor.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Exposure to asbestos fibers attributable to Pfizer is so minimal so as to be insufficient to
establish 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.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Pfizer was on notice of any hazard or defect for which the plaintiff seeks relief, which
Pfizer denies, plaintiff also had such notice and is thereby barred from recovery.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
There is no justiciable issue or controversy.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The claims for damages have not accrued and are merely speculative, uncertain and
contingent.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff has acted voluntarily, unnecessarily, prematurely and with no evidence of
injury to anyone at any job locations.
10 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
None of the alleged injuries or damages was foreseeable at the time of the acts or omissions
alleged in the plaintiff’s Complaint.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff was warned of the risk of exposure to use of asbestos-containing materials.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff’s cause of action for exemplary or punitive damages is barred because such
damages are not recoverable or warranted in this action.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is barred by the ex post facto clause of the
United States Constitution.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times relevant to this litigation, Pfizer complied with all applicable laws, regulations
and standards.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of collateral estoppel.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any damages which may have been sustained by the plaintiff were caused and contributed
to by reason of the negligence of the plaintiff.
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any damages which may have been sustained by the plaintiff were contributed to, in whole
or in part, by the conduct of the plaintiff.
11 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If the plaintiff sustained injuries in the manner alleged, all of which has been denied by
Pfizer, the liability of Pfizer, if any, should be limited in accordance with Article 16 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules.
FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer denies that the plaintiff had any exposure to any asbestos product manufactured,
installed, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered, sold and/or
otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, if any, by it, and more particularly, denies that Pfizer
manufactured, installed, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered,
sold, and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, any asbestos product at the time and
upon the dates alleged in the Complaint.
FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer had no duty to plaintiff or has performed each and every duty, if any, owing to
plaintiff.
FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff neither used nor was exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured,
assembled, installed, distributed, sold and/or supplied by Pfizer.
FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The claims of plaintiff, if any, are barred by the provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1001(g) (2)
relating to asbestos or the use thereof.
FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer was never a member of any asbestos trade association and has no liability or
knowledge that might have arisen therefrom.
12 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer did not manufacture, process, or produce any asbestos materials and has no liability
that might have arisen therefrom.
FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Pfizer incorporated into its products any asbestos-containing materials supplied by
others, such asbestos was fully encapsulated, was not friable and would not and did not cause harm
to plaintiff.
FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This action is barred by virtue of the four year Statute of Limitations prescribed by Section
2-725 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and other applicable statutes of limitation; by
virtue of failure of plaintiff to give requisite notice to Pfizer under Article 2 of the Uniform
Commercial Code, insofar as a cause of action is alleged for breach of warranty or warranties,
express or implied; as well as by virtue of the absence of privity or of any contractual relationship
between the plaintiff and Pfizer.
FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of arbitration and award.
FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of discharge in
bankruptcy.
FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of payment.
SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of release.
13 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
SIXTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of res judicata.
SIXTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained against this defendant because
of the government contractor defense. See Boyle v. United Technologies, 487 U.S. 500 (1980).
SIXTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to plead any basis for claims of misrepresentation, deliberate
concealment or fraud against Pfizer, much less state claims with the specificity required by the
Civil Practice Law and Rules.
SIXTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
In the event plaintiff recovers a verdict or judgment against Pfizer, the said verdict or
judgment must be reduced pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4545(c) by those amounts which have been,
or will, with reasonable certainty, replace or indemnify plaintiff, in whole or in part, for any past
or future claimed economic source such as insurance, social security, workers’ compensation or
employee benefits programs.
SIXTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer hereby invokes the provisions of Article 50-B of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
SIXTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service of process on Pfizer.
SIXTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer avers that venue is improper.
14 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
SIXTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If the plaintiff is barred from recovery, the action of his wife is also barred because it is a
derivative action.
SIXTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pfizer reserves the right to assert any and/or all applicable affirmative defenses which
discovery may reveal appropriate.
SEVENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over each and every Count contained in
plaintiff’s Complaint.
SEVENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This Court is considered a forum non conveniens for Pfizer with respect to each and every
Count contained in plaintiff’s Complaint.
REPLY TO CROSS-CLAIM(S) OF OTHER DEFENDANTS AND ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS
Pfizer denies all cross claims now or hereafter averred against it and asserts that it is not
liable to any other defendants or additional defendants, now or hereafter joined in this action.
Pfizer believes and therefore avers that certain defendants and/or additional defendants,
now or hereafter joined in this action, may have entered into releases with the plaintiff herein.
To the extent that certain defendants and/or additional defendants have entered into such
releases with the plaintiff herein, such defendants and/or additional defendants, now or hereafter
joined in this action, are not entitled to contribution or indemnity from Pfizer.
AS AND FOR A CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST EACH AND EVERY CO-DEFENDANT,
THE DEFENDANT, PFIZER INC., ALLEGES UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF AS
FOLLOWS:
15 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
That if the plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages in the manner and at the time and
place alleged, and if it is found that the answering defendant is liable to plaintiff herein, all of
which is specifically denied, then said answering defendant on the basis of contract, either
expressed or implied by law and/or by apportionment of responsibility for the alleged occurrence,
is entitled to indemnification or contribution from and judgment over and against some or all of
the co-defendants in this action for all or part of any verdict or judgment that plaintiff may recover
against said answering defendant.
That by reason of this action, said answering defendant has been and will be put to costs
and expenses including attorney’s fees for the defense of the same and, therefore, the answering
defendant is entitled to reimbursement from some or all of the co-defendants for some or all of
said costs, expenses and fees.
WHEREFORE, defendant Pfizer demands judgment dismissing the Complaint herein and
all cross-claims in their entirety, and further demands that the ultimate rights of all of the parties
as between themselves be determined in this action and that Pfizer have judgment over and against
all other defendants, third-party defendants and third-party plaintiff, now or hereafter joined in this
action, for all or part of any verdict or judgment that may be obtained by the plaintiff herein,
together with fees, costs and disbursements in this action, and such other further relief as this Court
deems just and proper.
Dated: White Plains, New York
July 22, 2021
Yours, etc.
/s/ Joan M. Gasior
By: Joan M. Gasior, Esq.
RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP
One North Broadway Suiter 1005
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 285-0700
16 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
Facsimile: (914) 285-1213
Attorneys for Defendant
Pfizer Inc.
To: Michael Fanelli, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
(212) 558-5500
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17 of 18
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021
ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )
I, Joan M. Gasior, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of
New York State, and say that:
I am an attorney for defendant, Pfizer Inc. I have read the annexed Verified Answer of
Pfizer Inc. to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, know the contents thereof and the same are true to
my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and
belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not
stated upon knowledge, is based upon conversations with the defendant and review of records or
documents in the file.
The reason I make this affirmation instead of the defendant is that it is not in the county in
which I maintain my office.
I affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under penalties of perjury.
Dated: White Plains, New York
July 22, 2021
/s/ Joan M. Gasior
Joan M. Gasior
18 of 18
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ------------------------------------------------------------------------X HARRY J. HAMPSON, Plaintiff, Index No.: 606219/2021 -against- VERIFIED ANSWER AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., n/k/a RHONE POULENC AG COMPANY, n/k/a BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC., et al., Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------X PFIZER INC., (hereinafter referred to as “Pfizer”), by and through its counsel, RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP, as and for its Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s Summons and Verified Complaint, (hereinafter the “Complaint”), states upon information and belief as follows: 1. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with respect to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph “1” of the Complaint. 2. Pfizer denies knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “2” through “23” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “2” through “23” of the Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 3. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated as “1” through “23” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “24” of the Complaint. 4. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “25” through “43” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “25” through “43” of the 1 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 5. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated as “1” through “43” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “44” of the Complaint. 6. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “45” through “49” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “45” through “49” of the Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 7. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated as “1” through “49” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “50” of the Complaint. 8. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “51” through “59” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “51” through “59” of the Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. 2 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated as “1” through “59” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “60” of the Complaint. 10. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “61” through “70” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer. Insofar as the allegations in Paragraphs “61” through “70” of the Complaint are directed to Pfizer, they are denied and Pfizer refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated as “1” through “70” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “71” of the Complaint. 12. Pfizer denies each and every allegation in the Paragraphs designated as “72” through “89” of the Complaint as they pertain to Pfizer and refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs “72” through “89” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer. AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13. Pfizer repeats and realleges each and every response to the Paragraphs designated as “1” through “89” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in the Paragraph designated as “90” of the Complaint. 3 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 14. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph “91” of the Complaint. 15. Pfizer denies each and every allegation in the Paragraph designated as “92” of the Complaint as they pertain to Pfizer and refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court. Pfizer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph “92” of the Complaint with respect to defendants other than Pfizer. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Each and every Count of plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Pfizer upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Pfizer, or over each and every count asserted against Pfizer in plaintiff’s Complaint. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries and/or illnesses, if any, sustained by plaintiff was caused or contributed to by the fault, negligence and want of care on the part of plaintiff or on the part of others for whose acts or omission or breach of legal duty Pfizer is not liable. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that plaintiff failed and neglected to maintain this action in a swift, diligent and/or timely fashion, plaintiff’s claims against Pfizer are barred by laches. 4 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries and/or illnesses of the plaintiff, if any, arose in whole or in part, out of the risks, hazards and dangers incident to the occupations of plaintiff, all of which were open, obvious and well known to the plaintiff, and any claims against Pfizer are therefore barred. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that the injuries and/or illnesses of plaintiff, if any, were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by intervening and superseding causative factors, the claims against Pfizer are barred. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that all of the alleged products were modified, altered, or in any way materially varied, which may be causally related to the claims of plaintiff, plaintiff’s claims against Pfizer are barred. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times material hereto, the state of the medical and industrial art was such that there was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any unavoidable, unsafe, inherently dangerous, or hazardous character or nature of asbestos-containing material when used in the manner and purpose allegedly described by the plaintiff and, therefore, there was no duty on the part of Pfizer to know of any such character or nature or to warn or protect plaintiff or others similarly situated. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and/or illnesses through any careless, recklessness, acts, omissions, negligence and/or breach of duty and/or warranty and/or 5 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 contract of Pfizer, plaintiff’s claims are barred by the exclusivity of plaintiff’s workers compensation remedy. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the Statute of Frauds. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the doctrine waiver. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the doctrine of estoppel. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that plaintiff relies on New York Law L. 1986 C. 682 Section 4 as grounds for maintaining this action, said section is unconstitutional and this action is time barred. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Insofar as the claims herein are premised on plaintiff’s claims accruing on or after September 1, 1975 to recover damages attributable to personal injuries or for indemnification of such damages, the amount of damages recoverable thereon must be diminished by reason of the culpable conduct attributable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants herein, including their comparative negligence and assumption or risk, in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to plaintiff bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This action does not fall within any exception enumerated in N.Y. C.P.L.R. Article 16, and, if liability of this defendant is found to be 50% or less of the total liability assigned to all persons, the liability of this defendant shall not exceed this defendant’s equitable share determined in 6 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 accordance with the relative culpability of each person contributing to the total liability for non- economic loss. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred because of plaintiff’s failure to join necessary and indispensable parties. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer is not a party and/or real party in interest in connection with the claims asserted by plaintiff. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff may not bring this action as he has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries and disabilities alleged in the Complaint. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff contributed to the illnesses, either in whole or in part, by the use of tobacco products and/or other substances, products, medication or drugs. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times relevant to this litigation, the agents, servants and/or employees of Pfizer used proper methods in handling the products complained of and conducting its operations, in conformity with available knowledge, state of the art, and research of the scientific and industrial communities. 7 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, through the operation of nature. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that the plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos product as a result of conduct by Pfizer, which is denied, said exposure was de minimis and not a substantial contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease which such plaintiff may have developed, thus requiring dismissal of the claims against Pfizer. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Insofar as the Complaint seeks exemplary and/or punitive damages, each such claim is barred by the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution; by prescription of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 5 of the New York State Constitution prohibiting the imposition of excess fines; and by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All defenses which have been or will be asserted by other defendants in this action are adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth at length herein as defenses of the Complaint. In addition, Pfizer will rely upon any and all other further defenses which become available or appear during discovery proceedings in this action and hereby respectfully reserves the right to amend its answer for the purposes of asserting any such additional defenses. 8 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If the plaintiff sustained damages as alleged, such damages occurred while he was engaged in activities into which he entered, knowing the hazard, risk and danger of the activities, and he/she assumed the risks incidental and attended thereto. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No acts or omissions of Pfizer proximately caused any damages. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any asbestos-containing product that may have been present at the plaintiff’s job locations was placed in any such locations and/or buildings upon specification, approval or at the instruction of governmental or legislative agencies or bodies. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times alleged in the Complaint, Pfizer followed the plans, specifications and contracts set by a governmental body and did not deviate from said plans, specifications and contracts and is thus cloaked with immunity. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer is not liable to the plaintiff for the damages alleged in the Complaint because such damages are excluded and not recoverable under express warranty. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer denies that the asbestos products alleged in the Complaint are products within the meaning and scope of the Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A and, as such, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action in strict products liability. 9 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer had no knowledge or reason to know of any alleged risks associated with asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products at any time during the periods complained of. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff are due to an idiosyncratic reaction on the part of the plaintiff. As such, Pfizer is not responsible therefor. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Exposure to asbestos fibers attributable to Pfizer is so minimal so as to be insufficient to establish 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. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Pfizer was on notice of any hazard or defect for which the plaintiff seeks relief, which Pfizer denies, plaintiff also had such notice and is thereby barred from recovery. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE There is no justiciable issue or controversy. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims for damages have not accrued and are merely speculative, uncertain and contingent. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff has acted voluntarily, unnecessarily, prematurely and with no evidence of injury to anyone at any job locations. 10 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE None of the alleged injuries or damages was foreseeable at the time of the acts or omissions alleged in the plaintiff’s Complaint. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff was warned of the risk of exposure to use of asbestos-containing materials. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff’s cause of action for exemplary or punitive damages is barred because such damages are not recoverable or warranted in this action. FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is barred by the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times relevant to this litigation, Pfizer complied with all applicable laws, regulations and standards. FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of collateral estoppel. FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any damages which may have been sustained by the plaintiff were caused and contributed to by reason of the negligence of the plaintiff. FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any damages which may have been sustained by the plaintiff were contributed to, in whole or in part, by the conduct of the plaintiff. 11 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If the plaintiff sustained injuries in the manner alleged, all of which has been denied by Pfizer, the liability of Pfizer, if any, should be limited in accordance with Article 16 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer denies that the plaintiff had any exposure to any asbestos product manufactured, installed, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered, sold and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, if any, by it, and more particularly, denies that Pfizer manufactured, installed, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered, sold, and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, any asbestos product at the time and upon the dates alleged in the Complaint. FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer had no duty to plaintiff or has performed each and every duty, if any, owing to plaintiff. FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff neither used nor was exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured, assembled, installed, distributed, sold and/or supplied by Pfizer. FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims of plaintiff, if any, are barred by the provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1001(g) (2) relating to asbestos or the use thereof. FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer was never a member of any asbestos trade association and has no liability or knowledge that might have arisen therefrom. 12 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer did not manufacture, process, or produce any asbestos materials and has no liability that might have arisen therefrom. FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Pfizer incorporated into its products any asbestos-containing materials supplied by others, such asbestos was fully encapsulated, was not friable and would not and did not cause harm to plaintiff. FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This action is barred by virtue of the four year Statute of Limitations prescribed by Section 2-725 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and other applicable statutes of limitation; by virtue of failure of plaintiff to give requisite notice to Pfizer under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, insofar as a cause of action is alleged for breach of warranty or warranties, express or implied; as well as by virtue of the absence of privity or of any contractual relationship between the plaintiff and Pfizer. FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of arbitration and award. FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of discharge in bankruptcy. FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of payment. SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of release. 13 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 SIXTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of res judicata. SIXTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained against this defendant because of the government contractor defense. See Boyle v. United Technologies, 487 U.S. 500 (1980). SIXTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has failed to plead any basis for claims of misrepresentation, deliberate concealment or fraud against Pfizer, much less state claims with the specificity required by the Civil Practice Law and Rules. SIXTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE In the event plaintiff recovers a verdict or judgment against Pfizer, the said verdict or judgment must be reduced pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4545(c) by those amounts which have been, or will, with reasonable certainty, replace or indemnify plaintiff, in whole or in part, for any past or future claimed economic source such as insurance, social security, workers’ compensation or employee benefits programs. SIXTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer hereby invokes the provisions of Article 50-B of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. SIXTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service of process on Pfizer. SIXTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer avers that venue is improper. 14 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 SIXTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If the plaintiff is barred from recovery, the action of his wife is also barred because it is a derivative action. SIXTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pfizer reserves the right to assert any and/or all applicable affirmative defenses which discovery may reveal appropriate. SEVENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over each and every Count contained in plaintiff’s Complaint. SEVENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This Court is considered a forum non conveniens for Pfizer with respect to each and every Count contained in plaintiff’s Complaint. REPLY TO CROSS-CLAIM(S) OF OTHER DEFENDANTS AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS Pfizer denies all cross claims now or hereafter averred against it and asserts that it is not liable to any other defendants or additional defendants, now or hereafter joined in this action. Pfizer believes and therefore avers that certain defendants and/or additional defendants, now or hereafter joined in this action, may have entered into releases with the plaintiff herein. To the extent that certain defendants and/or additional defendants have entered into such releases with the plaintiff herein, such defendants and/or additional defendants, now or hereafter joined in this action, are not entitled to contribution or indemnity from Pfizer. AS AND FOR A CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST EACH AND EVERY CO-DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT, PFIZER INC., ALLEGES UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF AS FOLLOWS: 15 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 That if the plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages in the manner and at the time and place alleged, and if it is found that the answering defendant is liable to plaintiff herein, all of which is specifically denied, then said answering defendant on the basis of contract, either expressed or implied by law and/or by apportionment of responsibility for the alleged occurrence, is entitled to indemnification or contribution from and judgment over and against some or all of the co-defendants in this action for all or part of any verdict or judgment that plaintiff may recover against said answering defendant. That by reason of this action, said answering defendant has been and will be put to costs and expenses including attorney’s fees for the defense of the same and, therefore, the answering defendant is entitled to reimbursement from some or all of the co-defendants for some or all of said costs, expenses and fees. WHEREFORE, defendant Pfizer demands judgment dismissing the Complaint herein and all cross-claims in their entirety, and further demands that the ultimate rights of all of the parties as between themselves be determined in this action and that Pfizer have judgment over and against all other defendants, third-party defendants and third-party plaintiff, now or hereafter joined in this action, for all or part of any verdict or judgment that may be obtained by the plaintiff herein, together with fees, costs and disbursements in this action, and such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: White Plains, New York July 22, 2021 Yours, etc. /s/ Joan M. Gasior By: Joan M. Gasior, Esq. RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP One North Broadway Suiter 1005 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 285-0700 16 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 Facsimile: (914) 285-1213 Attorneys for Defendant Pfizer Inc. To: Michael Fanelli, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 (212) 558-5500 Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 of 18 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2021 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 606219/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2021 ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) I, Joan M. Gasior, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, and say that: I am an attorney for defendant, Pfizer Inc. I have read the annexed Verified Answer of Pfizer Inc. to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon conversations with the defendant and review of records or documents in the file. The reason I make this affirmation instead of the defendant is that it is not in the county in which I maintain my office. I affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under penalties of perjury. Dated: White Plains, New York July 22, 2021 /s/ Joan M. Gasior Joan M. Gasior 18 of 18