Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023
EXHIBIT B
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
______......-.--- ___ _ __ __ _ _______..___Ç
JONI SALANG and MARIA WARNKE,
INDEX NO.: 702310/2019
Plaintiff(s),
VERIFIED ANSWER,
- against - BILL OF PARTICULARS &
COMBINED DEMANDS
POLANCO ENTERPRISES and KAMRAN
CHAUDHRY, Our File No.: 796108
Case ID No.: 100645
Defendant(s). Your File No.: 7017157
___ _..........---------------..-...._ __ _ ______Ç
The Defendant(s) POLANCO ENTERPRISES and KAMRAN CHAUDHRY by
their/his/her attorneys, BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. answering the
Complaint of the Plaintiff herein, respectfully shows and alleges upon information and belief, as
follows:
ANSWER
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 3,17,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37.
Deny(ies) any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a.belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows:
1,4,5,7,9,10,l 1,12,13,14,15,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 40,41,42,43,44,45.
Deny(ies) any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 39.
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 47,48.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 50,51.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 53,54.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 56,57.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 59,60.
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023
AFFIRMATIVF, DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant(s) in that the
summons and complaint was not served upon the Defendant(s), and if the summons was served,
it was not effected in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 3 of the CPLR
governing the service of process.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
By reason of the provisions of Article 51 of the New York Comprehensive Motor Vehicle
Insurance Reparations Act, Sections 5101 to 5108, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this action and Plaintiff(s) is/are expressly prohibited from maintaining this action.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to the C.PL.R. Sections 1411 and 1412, any damages sustained by the
Plaintiff(s) was/were caused by the culpable conduct of Plaintiff(s), including contributory
negligence or assumption of the risk, and not by the culpable conduct or negligence of the
answering Defendant(s).
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to C.P1.R. 4545, Plaintiffs recovery should be reduced by any amounts
received or that will be received by Plaintiff(s) from collateral sources of payment.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Plaintiff(s) suffered injury and damage in the manner and at the time and place alleged
in the Complaint, which Defendant(s) deny, and if itis determined that said injury and damage
were caused by and contributed to the Plaintiff's failure to use or properly use seat belts, shoulder
harness(es) or other restraining devices, pursuant to the authority of Spier V. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d
444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, Defendant(s) pleads Plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages,
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If itis determined that Plaintiff(s) or any party to this lawsuit has proceeded to arbitration
with respect to any issue related to this action that results in an adverse ruling to said Plaintiff(s)
or party, then the answering Defendant(s) pleads said adverse ruling or award on the theory of
collateral estoppel under the authority of Matter of American Insurance Co. (Messenger-Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co.), 43 N.Y.2d 184, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36; Altman v. Queens Tr. Corp., 94 Misc.2d
549, 405 N.Y.S.2d 212; Dermatossian v. New York City Transit Authority, 67 N.Y.2d 219, 501
N.Y.S.2d 784; c.f. Baldwin v. Brooks, 83 A.D.2d 85, 443 N.Y.S.2d 906; Clemmens v. Apple, 65
N.Y.2d 746 and Schultz v. Boyscouts ofAmerica, 65 N.Y.2d 189.
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Upon information and belief, plaintiff(s) failed to mitigate damages.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s) damages, ifany, are limited by the offset provisions of Section 15-108 of the
General Obligations Law.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
For the Defendant(s) engaged in the trade or business of renting or vehicles,
leasing
including but not limited to the vehicle alleged in the Complaint, that/those Defendant(s) had no
active negligence or criminal wrongdoing related to the alleged accident in which personal
injuries are claimed to have been sustained by Plaintiff(s). As such, under Federal Legislation,
49 United State Code Chapter 301, Subdivision 1, Section 3016 titled "Rented or Leased Motor
Responsibility,"
Vehicle Safety and is/are not liable under the law of the State of
Defendant(s)
New York for the injuries alleged in the Complaint that may have resulted or arisen out of the
use, operation or possession of the vehicle stated in the Complaint. The Complaint therefore
fails to state a cause of action against Defendant(s). Dismissal will be sought, together with
attorneys'
costs, expenses and fees.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Defendant(s) reserve(s) the right to amend the answer, defenses, and/or any
counterclaims and cross claims at a later date.
Counterclaim against: JONI SALANG
If Plaintiff(s) sustained injuries and damages in the manner and the time and place
alleged, any such injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff(s) were due to the negligent,
careless and reckless conduct of the Plaintiff without any negligence or contribution of the
answering Defendant(s). In the event that the Plaintiff(s) recover(s) judgment against the
answering Defendant(s), then answering Defendant(s) demand(s) indemnification or contribution
from, and judgment against the Plaintiff, together with the costs and disbursement. The
answering Defendant(s) is/are entitled to indemnification and/or contribution for all or part of
any verdict or judgment the Plaintiff(s)may recover against the answering Defendant(s).
WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) demand(s) judgment dismissing Complaint as to
Defendants(s) or diminishing the damages recoverable by Plaintiff(s) in proportion to the
culpable conduct attributable to Plaintiff(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this
action, and further demands that in the event answering Defendant(s) is/are found liable, that
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023
Defendant(s), on the basis of apportionment of responsibility and/or indemnification, have
judgment against the Plaintiff(s) for all or part of the verdict or judgment that Plaintiff(s) may
recover against answering Defendant(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this action,
attorneys'
and for any expenses incurred in the defense thereof, including fees.
Dated: March 20, 2019
Brooklyn, N.Y. Baker c v y, orrisse osk vits, PC
Adri·
. Leve , Esq.
Attorney(s) for th Defe da t
POLANCO ENT RP SES and
KAMRAN CHA DH Y
8th
One MetroTech Ce t , Pl00r
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Tel: 212-857-8230
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
AttorneyÇ·) for the Plaintiff(s)
JONI SALANG and MARIA WARNKE
6 HARBOR PARK DRIVE
PORT WASHINGTON, NY 11050
Tel: 516-466-6500
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __..------......_ _ __ ____________Ç
JONI SALANG and MARIA WARNKE, INDEX NO.: 702310/2019
Plaintiff(s), ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
- against - Our File No.: 796108
Case ID No.: 100645
POLANCO ENTERPRISES and KAMRAN Your File No.: 7017157
CHAUDHRY,
Defendant(s).
___ __..------------.._ _..---...------.x
I, ADRIANNE1 LEVEN, an attorney admitted to the practice of law before the courts of
the State of New York, and not a party to the above-referenced action, affirm the following to be
true under the penalties of perjury:
l . Affirmant is a member of the law firm of Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey &
Moskovits, P.C., attorneys of record for answering Defendant(s) in the above-referenced action.
2. Affirmant has read the VERIFIED ANSWER, BILL OF PARTICULARS, &
COMBINED DEMANDS and knows the contents thereof; that same is true to Affirmant's own
knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as
to those matters Affirmant believes them to be true.
3, This verification is made by Affirmant and not by answering Defendant(s),
because said Defendant(s) were not within the County in which Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey &
Moskovits, P.C. maintain their offices for the practice of law when this VERIFIED ANSWER,
BILL OF PARTICULARS, & COMBINED DEMANDS was drafted.
4. The grounds of Affirmant's belief as to all matters not stated upon Affirmant's
knowledge is as follows: BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM OF
BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. AND INFORMATI SUPPLIED
BY AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY.
Dated: March 20, 2019
Brooklyn, NY
Adr e J. L ven, Esq
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023 EXHIBIT B FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ______......-.--- ___ _ __ __ _ _______..___Ç JONI SALANG and MARIA WARNKE, INDEX NO.: 702310/2019 Plaintiff(s), VERIFIED ANSWER, - against - BILL OF PARTICULARS & COMBINED DEMANDS POLANCO ENTERPRISES and KAMRAN CHAUDHRY, Our File No.: 796108 Case ID No.: 100645 Defendant(s). Your File No.: 7017157 ___ _..........---------------..-...._ __ _ ______Ç The Defendant(s) POLANCO ENTERPRISES and KAMRAN CHAUDHRY by their/his/her attorneys, BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. answering the Complaint of the Plaintiff herein, respectfully shows and alleges upon information and belief, as follows: ANSWER Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 3,17,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37. Deny(ies) any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a.belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 1,4,5,7,9,10,l 1,12,13,14,15,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 40,41,42,43,44,45. Deny(ies) any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 39. FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 47,48. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 50,51. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 53,54. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 56,57. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 59,60. FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023 AFFIRMATIVF, DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant(s) in that the summons and complaint was not served upon the Defendant(s), and if the summons was served, it was not effected in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 3 of the CPLR governing the service of process. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE By reason of the provisions of Article 51 of the New York Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, Sections 5101 to 5108, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and Plaintiff(s) is/are expressly prohibited from maintaining this action. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to the C.PL.R. Sections 1411 and 1412, any damages sustained by the Plaintiff(s) was/were caused by the culpable conduct of Plaintiff(s), including contributory negligence or assumption of the risk, and not by the culpable conduct or negligence of the answering Defendant(s). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to C.P1.R. 4545, Plaintiffs recovery should be reduced by any amounts received or that will be received by Plaintiff(s) from collateral sources of payment. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff(s) suffered injury and damage in the manner and at the time and place alleged in the Complaint, which Defendant(s) deny, and if itis determined that said injury and damage were caused by and contributed to the Plaintiff's failure to use or properly use seat belts, shoulder harness(es) or other restraining devices, pursuant to the authority of Spier V. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, Defendant(s) pleads Plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages, SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If itis determined that Plaintiff(s) or any party to this lawsuit has proceeded to arbitration with respect to any issue related to this action that results in an adverse ruling to said Plaintiff(s) or party, then the answering Defendant(s) pleads said adverse ruling or award on the theory of collateral estoppel under the authority of Matter of American Insurance Co. (Messenger-Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.), 43 N.Y.2d 184, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36; Altman v. Queens Tr. Corp., 94 Misc.2d 549, 405 N.Y.S.2d 212; Dermatossian v. New York City Transit Authority, 67 N.Y.2d 219, 501 N.Y.S.2d 784; c.f. Baldwin v. Brooks, 83 A.D.2d 85, 443 N.Y.S.2d 906; Clemmens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 and Schultz v. Boyscouts ofAmerica, 65 N.Y.2d 189. FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Upon information and belief, plaintiff(s) failed to mitigate damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s) damages, ifany, are limited by the offset provisions of Section 15-108 of the General Obligations Law. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For the Defendant(s) engaged in the trade or business of renting or vehicles, leasing including but not limited to the vehicle alleged in the Complaint, that/those Defendant(s) had no active negligence or criminal wrongdoing related to the alleged accident in which personal injuries are claimed to have been sustained by Plaintiff(s). As such, under Federal Legislation, 49 United State Code Chapter 301, Subdivision 1, Section 3016 titled "Rented or Leased Motor Responsibility," Vehicle Safety and is/are not liable under the law of the State of Defendant(s) New York for the injuries alleged in the Complaint that may have resulted or arisen out of the use, operation or possession of the vehicle stated in the Complaint. The Complaint therefore fails to state a cause of action against Defendant(s). Dismissal will be sought, together with attorneys' costs, expenses and fees. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Defendant(s) reserve(s) the right to amend the answer, defenses, and/or any counterclaims and cross claims at a later date. Counterclaim against: JONI SALANG If Plaintiff(s) sustained injuries and damages in the manner and the time and place alleged, any such injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff(s) were due to the negligent, careless and reckless conduct of the Plaintiff without any negligence or contribution of the answering Defendant(s). In the event that the Plaintiff(s) recover(s) judgment against the answering Defendant(s), then answering Defendant(s) demand(s) indemnification or contribution from, and judgment against the Plaintiff, together with the costs and disbursement. The answering Defendant(s) is/are entitled to indemnification and/or contribution for all or part of any verdict or judgment the Plaintiff(s)may recover against the answering Defendant(s). WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) demand(s) judgment dismissing Complaint as to Defendants(s) or diminishing the damages recoverable by Plaintiff(s) in proportion to the culpable conduct attributable to Plaintiff(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and further demands that in the event answering Defendant(s) is/are found liable, that FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023 Defendant(s), on the basis of apportionment of responsibility and/or indemnification, have judgment against the Plaintiff(s) for all or part of the verdict or judgment that Plaintiff(s) may recover against answering Defendant(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this action, attorneys' and for any expenses incurred in the defense thereof, including fees. Dated: March 20, 2019 Brooklyn, N.Y. Baker c v y, orrisse osk vits, PC Adri· . Leve , Esq. Attorney(s) for th Defe da t POLANCO ENT RP SES and KAMRAN CHA DH Y 8th One MetroTech Ce t , Pl00r Brooklyn, New York 11201 Tel: 212-857-8230 PARKER WAICHMAN LLP AttorneyÇ·) for the Plaintiff(s) JONI SALANG and MARIA WARNKE 6 HARBOR PARK DRIVE PORT WASHINGTON, NY 11050 Tel: 516-466-6500 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2023 05:13 PM INDEX NO. 702310/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __..------......_ _ __ ____________Ç JONI SALANG and MARIA WARNKE, INDEX NO.: 702310/2019 Plaintiff(s), ATTORNEY VERIFICATION - against - Our File No.: 796108 Case ID No.: 100645 POLANCO ENTERPRISES and KAMRAN Your File No.: 7017157 CHAUDHRY, Defendant(s). ___ __..------------.._ _..---...------.x I, ADRIANNE1 LEVEN, an attorney admitted to the practice of law before the courts of the State of New York, and not a party to the above-referenced action, affirm the following to be true under the penalties of perjury: l . Affirmant is a member of the law firm of Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., attorneys of record for answering Defendant(s) in the above-referenced action. 2. Affirmant has read the VERIFIED ANSWER, BILL OF PARTICULARS, & COMBINED DEMANDS and knows the contents thereof; that same is true to Affirmant's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters Affirmant believes them to be true. 3, This verification is made by Affirmant and not by answering Defendant(s), because said Defendant(s) were not within the County in which Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. maintain their offices for the practice of law when this VERIFIED ANSWER, BILL OF PARTICULARS, & COMBINED DEMANDS was drafted. 4. The grounds of Affirmant's belief as to all matters not stated upon Affirmant's knowledge is as follows: BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM OF BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. AND INFORMATI SUPPLIED BY AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY. Dated: March 20, 2019 Brooklyn, NY Adr e J. L ven, Esq