Preview
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
-----------------------------------------------------------X
JANE DOE – 19240, Index No.: 2021-51440
Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER
-against-
THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE
and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
As and for a Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint, the Defendant, THE
CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE, (hereinafter “Answering Defendant”), through
their counsel, SCHWAB & GASPARINI, PLLC, alleges the following, upon information and
belief:
1. Answering Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs “1”, “2”, “8”, “9”,
“10”, “11”, “12”, “15”, “16”, “17”, “23”, “28”, “29”, “30”, “31”, “32”, “33”, “34”, “35”, “37”,
“38”, “39”, “40”, “44”, “45”, “47”, “48” and “59” of the Complaint for want of knowledge and
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.
2. Answering Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “7”,
“13”, “24”, “25”, “26”, “61”, “62”, “63”, “64”, “65”, “66”, “67”, “68”, “69”, “70”, “71”, “72”,
“73”, “98”, “99”, “100”, “102”, “116”, “117”, “118”, “123”, “124”, “125”, “126” and “136” of
the Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court.
3. Answering Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph “6” of the
Complaint.
Page 1 of 9
1 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
4. Answering Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs “14”, “18”, “19”, “20”,
“21”, “22”, “36”, “41”, “42”, “43”, “46”, “49”, “50”, “51”, “52”, “53”, “54”, “55”, “56”, “57”,
“58”, “74”, “75”, “76”, “77”, “78”, “79”, “80”, “81”, “82”, “83”, “84”, “85”, “86”, “87”, “88”,
“89”, “90”, “91”, “92”, “94”, “95”, “96”, “97”, 101”, “103”, “104”, “105”, “106”, “107”, “108”,
“109”, “110”, “111”, “112”, “113”, “114”, “119”, “120”, “121”, “127”, “128”, “129”, “130”,
“131”, “132”, “133”, “134”, “137”, “138”, “139”, “140”, “141”, “142”, “143”, “144”, “146”,
“147, “148”, “149” and “150” of the Complaint.
5. With respect to paragraphs “27”, “60”, “93”, “115”, “122”, “135” and “145” of
the Complaint, Answering Defendant repeats, reiterates and reasserts each and every contention
as contained in the preceding paragraphs with the same force and effect as though each were
more fully set forth at length herein.
6. Answering Defendant denies each and every other paragraph, to the extent that
they may exist, not identified above.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. The causes of action raised within the Complaint fail to state a cause of action.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. Plaintiff has split a single cause of action.
Page 2 of 9
2 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. That plaintiff is not entitled to the multiple recoveries demanded within the
Complaint.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. The plaintiff has failed to join all material and necessary parties to this particular
action.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Whatever injuries plaintiff may have sustained were caused in whole or in part, or
were contributed to, by the culpable conduct and/or want of care on the part of, or by, someone
over whom Answering Defendant had no control.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. That upon information and belief, no acts or omissions by Answering Defendant
were the proximate cause of the damages purportedly sustained by Plaintiff.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. That upon information and belief, the damages alleged within the Complaint were
not a foreseeable consequence of any acts or omissions on the part of Answering Defendant.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. At those times mentioned and described in the Complaint, the Answering
Defendant acted in a reasonable manner, with probable cause, in good faith, without malice and
its actions were justified.
Page 3 of 9
3 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. The claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Answering Defendant at all
times acted in good faith.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. The injuries, losses and damages and occurrences alleged in the Complaint were
the result of an independent and intervening cause or causes over which Answering Defendant
had no control or right of control and in no way participated.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to
mitigate her damages.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. If Plaintiff was caused to suffer any damages as alleged in the Complaint, then
said damages were not caused by the culpable conduct on the part of the Answering Defendant or
their agents, servants or employees, but rather they were caused solely by the culpable conduct
of third parties over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or legal responsibility.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. The relative culpability of each party who is or may be liable for the
damages alleged by Plaintiff in this action should be determined in accordance with the
decisional and statutory law of the State of New York, and the equitable share of each
party's liability for contribution should be determined and apportioned in accordance with the
relative culpability, if any, of each such party pursuant to Article 14 of the CPLR.
Page 4 of 9
4 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused or
contributed to by the superseding and intervening negligence and/or breach of duty and/or acts or
omission of third parties over whom the Answering Defendant had no control and for whose
actions the Answering Defendant is not liable.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. Upon information and belief, plaintiff’s economic loss, if any, as specified in
CPLR 4545 was replaced or indemnified in whole or in part, from collateral sources, and
Answering Defendant is entitled to have the Court consider the same in determining such
damages as provided in CPLR 4545.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23. If Answering Defendant is liable at all, Answering Defendant’s liability is 50
percent or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable. By reason thereof, the liability
of Answering Defendant to the plaintiff for non-economic loss shall not exceed Answering
Defendant’s equitable share of liability determined in accordance with the relative culpability for
each person causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24. In the event any Defendants or other tortfeasors settle with the plaintiff, as a result
of the damages alleged in this action, or if the plaintiff discontinues against any co-defendants,
Answering Defendant reserve their rights under GOL Section 15-108 and in general to prove any
and all negligence on the part of said settling co-defendants and/or tortfeasors at a trial in this
action.
Page 5 of 9
5 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent they are not covered or contemplated by
the provisions of the Child Victims Act, CPLR §214-g (the “CVA”), and are thus time barred,
and/or to the extent the CVA is or may be determined to be unconstitutional under state or federal
law.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that the Answering Defendant acted with
reasonable care and followed appropriate procedures at all relevant times, including without
limitation in hiring, supervising and/or retaining any employee alleged to have committed or
engaged in any wrongdoing of any type, lacked the required notice of any alleged wrongdoing,
did not act with deliberate indifference, and otherwise took appropriate, prompt and/or
effective action in responding to any alleged complaints of any employee wrongdoing.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent the alleged acts of the employee
complained of were taken outside the scope of his/her/their employment with the Answering
Defendant, and to the extent the acts complained of occurred off Answering Defendant’s
premises and under circumstances over which the Answering Defendant had no control or any
substantial control.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28. That upon information and belief, Answering Defendant, at all times relevant
herein, did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
29. The Answering Defendant cannot be liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
Page 6 of 9
6 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
30. That the Answering Defendant did not participate, engage or assist in any act or
conduct which could form the basis for an award of punitive damages.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
31. At all times relevant herein, the Answering Defendant has acted in complete
conformity with generally recognized and prevailing standards.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
32. At all times relevant herein, the Answering Defendant has complied with all
relevant laws, regulations, and applicable standards and customs.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
33. Upon information and belief, the New York Child Victims Act is
unconstitutional, and as such, plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Complaint of
the plaintiff herein, together with attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements of this action.
Dated: Brewster, New York
June 21, 2021
Yours, etc.,
SCHWAB & GASPARINI, PLLC
BY:_________________________________
LOUIS U. GASPARINI
Attorneys Answering for Defendant:
THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE
1441 Route 22, Suite 206
Brewster, New York 10509
(914) 304-4353
File No. 138.003
Page 7 of 9
7 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
TO:
GREENSTEIN & MILBAUER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attention: Robert J. Greenstein, Esq.
1825 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10035
(212) 685-8500
File No.: 19240
MORRIS DUFFY ALONSO & FALEY
Attorneys for Defendant
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
Attention: Kenneth E. Pitcoff, Esq.
101 Greenwich Street, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10006
(212) 766-1888
File No. (TRI) 72579
Page 8 of 9
8 of 9
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
-----------------------------------------------------------X
JANE DOE – 19240, Index No.: 2021-51440
Plaintiff, VERIFICATION
-against-
THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE
and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
LOUIS U. GASPARINI, ESQ., an attorney admitted to practice law in the Courts of the
State of New York, hereby states the following:
I am a Member of the Law Firm of SCHWAB & GASPARINI, PLLC, the attorneys of
record for the Defendant, THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE, in the above
action. I have read the Answer to Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof and the
same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon
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 a review
of the file maintained by my office.
The reason I make this affirmation instead of Defendant, is your affirmant maintains his
office outside of the county in which the Defendant maintains their place of business.
I affirm that the foregoing statements are true under the penalties of perjury.
Dated: Brewster, New York
June 21, 2021
____________________________
LOUIS U. GASPARINI
Page 9 of 9
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS -----------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE – 19240, Index No.: 2021-51440 Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER -against- THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X As and for a Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint, the Defendant, THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE, (hereinafter “Answering Defendant”), through their counsel, SCHWAB & GASPARINI, PLLC, alleges the following, upon information and belief: 1. Answering Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs “1”, “2”, “8”, “9”, “10”, “11”, “12”, “15”, “16”, “17”, “23”, “28”, “29”, “30”, “31”, “32”, “33”, “34”, “35”, “37”, “38”, “39”, “40”, “44”, “45”, “47”, “48” and “59” of the Complaint for want of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof. 2. Answering Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “7”, “13”, “24”, “25”, “26”, “61”, “62”, “63”, “64”, “65”, “66”, “67”, “68”, “69”, “70”, “71”, “72”, “73”, “98”, “99”, “100”, “102”, “116”, “117”, “118”, “123”, “124”, “125”, “126” and “136” of the Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court. 3. Answering Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph “6” of the Complaint. Page 1 of 9 1 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 4. Answering Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs “14”, “18”, “19”, “20”, “21”, “22”, “36”, “41”, “42”, “43”, “46”, “49”, “50”, “51”, “52”, “53”, “54”, “55”, “56”, “57”, “58”, “74”, “75”, “76”, “77”, “78”, “79”, “80”, “81”, “82”, “83”, “84”, “85”, “86”, “87”, “88”, “89”, “90”, “91”, “92”, “94”, “95”, “96”, “97”, 101”, “103”, “104”, “105”, “106”, “107”, “108”, “109”, “110”, “111”, “112”, “113”, “114”, “119”, “120”, “121”, “127”, “128”, “129”, “130”, “131”, “132”, “133”, “134”, “137”, “138”, “139”, “140”, “141”, “142”, “143”, “144”, “146”, “147, “148”, “149” and “150” of the Complaint. 5. With respect to paragraphs “27”, “60”, “93”, “115”, “122”, “135” and “145” of the Complaint, Answering Defendant repeats, reiterates and reasserts each and every contention as contained in the preceding paragraphs with the same force and effect as though each were more fully set forth at length herein. 6. Answering Defendant denies each and every other paragraph, to the extent that they may exist, not identified above. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. The causes of action raised within the Complaint fail to state a cause of action. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. Plaintiff has split a single cause of action. Page 2 of 9 2 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. That plaintiff is not entitled to the multiple recoveries demanded within the Complaint. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. The plaintiff has failed to join all material and necessary parties to this particular action. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Whatever injuries plaintiff may have sustained were caused in whole or in part, or were contributed to, by the culpable conduct and/or want of care on the part of, or by, someone over whom Answering Defendant had no control. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. That upon information and belief, no acts or omissions by Answering Defendant were the proximate cause of the damages purportedly sustained by Plaintiff. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. That upon information and belief, the damages alleged within the Complaint were not a foreseeable consequence of any acts or omissions on the part of Answering Defendant. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. At those times mentioned and described in the Complaint, the Answering Defendant acted in a reasonable manner, with probable cause, in good faith, without malice and its actions were justified. Page 3 of 9 3 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. The claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Answering Defendant at all times acted in good faith. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. The injuries, losses and damages and occurrences alleged in the Complaint were the result of an independent and intervening cause or causes over which Answering Defendant had no control or right of control and in no way participated. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate her damages. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. If Plaintiff was caused to suffer any damages as alleged in the Complaint, then said damages were not caused by the culpable conduct on the part of the Answering Defendant or their agents, servants or employees, but rather they were caused solely by the culpable conduct of third parties over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or legal responsibility. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. The relative culpability of each party who is or may be liable for the damages alleged by Plaintiff in this action should be determined in accordance with the decisional and statutory law of the State of New York, and the equitable share of each party's liability for contribution should be determined and apportioned in accordance with the relative culpability, if any, of each such party pursuant to Article 14 of the CPLR. Page 4 of 9 4 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by the superseding and intervening negligence and/or breach of duty and/or acts or omission of third parties over whom the Answering Defendant had no control and for whose actions the Answering Defendant is not liable. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. Upon information and belief, plaintiff’s economic loss, if any, as specified in CPLR 4545 was replaced or indemnified in whole or in part, from collateral sources, and Answering Defendant is entitled to have the Court consider the same in determining such damages as provided in CPLR 4545. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. If Answering Defendant is liable at all, Answering Defendant’s liability is 50 percent or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable. By reason thereof, the liability of Answering Defendant to the plaintiff for non-economic loss shall not exceed Answering Defendant’s equitable share of liability determined in accordance with the relative culpability for each person causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24. In the event any Defendants or other tortfeasors settle with the plaintiff, as a result of the damages alleged in this action, or if the plaintiff discontinues against any co-defendants, Answering Defendant reserve their rights under GOL Section 15-108 and in general to prove any and all negligence on the part of said settling co-defendants and/or tortfeasors at a trial in this action. Page 5 of 9 5 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent they are not covered or contemplated by the provisions of the Child Victims Act, CPLR §214-g (the “CVA”), and are thus time barred, and/or to the extent the CVA is or may be determined to be unconstitutional under state or federal law. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that the Answering Defendant acted with reasonable care and followed appropriate procedures at all relevant times, including without limitation in hiring, supervising and/or retaining any employee alleged to have committed or engaged in any wrongdoing of any type, lacked the required notice of any alleged wrongdoing, did not act with deliberate indifference, and otherwise took appropriate, prompt and/or effective action in responding to any alleged complaints of any employee wrongdoing. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent the alleged acts of the employee complained of were taken outside the scope of his/her/their employment with the Answering Defendant, and to the extent the acts complained of occurred off Answering Defendant’s premises and under circumstances over which the Answering Defendant had no control or any substantial control. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. That upon information and belief, Answering Defendant, at all times relevant herein, did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29. The Answering Defendant cannot be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Page 6 of 9 6 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. That the Answering Defendant did not participate, engage or assist in any act or conduct which could form the basis for an award of punitive damages. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 31. At all times relevant herein, the Answering Defendant has acted in complete conformity with generally recognized and prevailing standards. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 32. At all times relevant herein, the Answering Defendant has complied with all relevant laws, regulations, and applicable standards and customs. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 33. Upon information and belief, the New York Child Victims Act is unconstitutional, and as such, plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff herein, together with attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: Brewster, New York June 21, 2021 Yours, etc., SCHWAB & GASPARINI, PLLC BY:_________________________________ LOUIS U. GASPARINI Attorneys Answering for Defendant: THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE 1441 Route 22, Suite 206 Brewster, New York 10509 (914) 304-4353 File No. 138.003 Page 7 of 9 7 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 TO: GREENSTEIN & MILBAUER, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Attention: Robert J. Greenstein, Esq. 1825 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, New York 10035 (212) 685-8500 File No.: 19240 MORRIS DUFFY ALONSO & FALEY Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF DUTCHESS Attention: Kenneth E. Pitcoff, Esq. 101 Greenwich Street, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 766-1888 File No. (TRI) 72579 Page 8 of 9 8 of 9 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 04:53 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS -----------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE – 19240, Index No.: 2021-51440 Plaintiff, VERIFICATION -against- THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X LOUIS U. GASPARINI, ESQ., an attorney admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York, hereby states the following: I am a Member of the Law Firm of SCHWAB & GASPARINI, PLLC, the attorneys of record for the Defendant, THE CHILDREN’S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE, in the above action. I have read the Answer to Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon 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 a review of the file maintained by my office. The reason I make this affirmation instead of Defendant, is your affirmant maintains his office outside of the county in which the Defendant maintains their place of business. I affirm that the foregoing statements are true under the penalties of perjury. Dated: Brewster, New York June 21, 2021 ____________________________ LOUIS U. GASPARINI Page 9 of 9 9 of 9