Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO.: 515534/2021
BRITTANY STEVENS,
Plaintiff,
- against - AFFIRMATION IN
OPPOSITION AND REPLY
RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP., DAVID RIVAS LUNA,
EMMANUEL MORGAN, ALI GEORGE,
INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS,
FILE NO. 1080056
Defendants. CASE ID NO. ATIC-133
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
RACHEL H. SCHEFEN, an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the
State of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to CPLR
2106:
1. I am associated with CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY, attorneys for the Defendants,
INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS, and as such am fully familiar with the
facts and circumstances of this action as set forth, based upon the contents of the file maintained in
this office.
2. I respectfully submit this Affirmation in Opposition and Reply to Plaintiff’s Cross
Motion for summary judgment, which includes Opposition to Defendants’ underlying motion seeking
relief in the form of an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants INO
TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS.
3. In opposition to Defendants’ underlying motion, Plaintiff submits a bare bones
Affidavit that was clearly tailored by Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ vehicle
was travelling at approximately 35-40 miles per hour before the accident occurred and came to a
short stop before being struck in the rear. Respectfully, neither of these contentions raise an issue of
1 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
fact or overcome Defendants’ entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. As a passenger,
Plaintiff’s estimation as to the speed of Defendants’ vehicle is merely speculative. Conclusory and
speculative assertions which are not supported by any evidence fail to raise issues of fact. Trzepacz
v. Jara, 11 A.D.3d 531 (2d Dep’t 2004).
4. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants’ vehicle was stopped when it was struck in
the rear. The Appellate Division, Second Department, has held in a lineage of cases that summary
judgment should be granted to a Plaintiff that is hit in the rear by the Defendant’s vehicle. In essence,
these cases hold that a rear end collision with an automobile establishes a prime facie case of
negligence on the part of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving
vehicle to explain how the accident occurred. The failure to do so requires, as a matter of law, a
finding of summary judgment. Dileo v. Greenstein, 722 N.Y.S.2d 269 (2d Dep’t 2001); Girolamo v.
Libby Line Transit, Inc., et al., 726 N.Y.S.2d 132 (2d Dep’t 2001); Shamah v. Richmond County
Ambulance Serv. Inc., et al., 279 A.D.2d 564 (2d Dep’t 2001).
5. While Plaintiff has cross moved for summary judgement, Plaintiff contradictorily
argues that Defendants’ underlying motion is premature. Defendants’ underlying motion is not
premature. A Court may properly grant summary judgment even prior to depositions. Belitsis v.
Airborne Express Freight Corp., 306 A.D. 2d (2d Dep’t 2003). See also Pena v. Castillo, 306 A.D.2d
519 (2d Dep’t 2003) (The Appellate Division held “[t]he Supreme Court improperly denied as
premature the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as premature.
(Citations omitted) Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the plaintiffs established their
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability.” Clearly, Defendants’ motion is
not premature.
6. In seeking summary judgment, Plaintiff relies exclusively on the fact that she was a
2 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
passenger to reach the conclusion that she is entitled to summary judgment on liability. Respectfully,
Plaintiff fails to establish that Defendants herein are negligent as a matter of law such that the motion
must be denied.
7. To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a Plaintiff must demonstrate: 1) a duty
owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; 2) a breach of that duty; and 3) an injury suffered by the
Plaintiff which was proximately caused by the breach. Solomon by Solomon v City of New York, 66
NY2d 1026 (1985), Akins v Glen Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325 (1981). In this instance,
Plaintiff has failed to submit admissible evidence establishing facts sufficient to demonstrate the
liability of the Defendant herein as a matter of law. Rather, Plaintiff concludes that as she was a
passenger, she is entitled to judgment.
8. On a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has the burden to offer evidence sufficient
to eliminate any material issue of fact. Summary judgment will be denied, even in the absence of
opposing papers, where Plaintiff's moving affidavits fail to meet the stringent evidentiary burden placed
upon movant. Falk v. Goodman, 7 N.Y.2d 87, 91 (1959); Coley v. Michelin Tire Corporation, 99
A.D.2d 795 (2nd Dept. 1984) ("the burden of the movant to produce evidentiary facts is greater than
on the opponent"); Cugini v. System Lumber Co., Inc., 111 A.D.2d 114 (1st Dept. 1981); Ahl v. Martin,
82 A.D.2d 938, (3d Dept. 1981); Greenberg v. Manlon Realty, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 968 (2nd Dept. 1974).
9. While Plaintiff as a passenger in one of the vehicles involved in the accident, may be
found to be free from comparative fault for the occurrence, her burden is twofold and a Plaintiff must
also establish liability as against one or more of the Defendants unless the liability of said Defendant
is determined as a matter of law. See Espinoza v. Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.. 121 A.D.3d
640 (2d Dep’t 2014); Phillip v. D & D Carting Co., Inc., 136 A.D.3d 18 (2d Dep’t 2015).
10. As established in Defendants’ underlying motion, Defendants bear no liability for the
3 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
underlying accident. Defendant MARINO RIVAS has provided a sworn affidavit, a copy of which is
annexed hereto as “EXHIBIT A”. Mr. RIVAS states that on January 21, 2020, he was operating a
vehicle with livery plate number T644440C. Mr. RIVAS notes that on this date, he was travelling on
Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn. He describes Eastern Parkway in this area is a two-way street with
three lanes for moving traffic. Mr. RIVAS states that he was travelling in the right most lane. As
Mr. RIVAS approached the intersection of Eastern Parkway and Rockaway Avenue, he was
travelling at about 15 miles per hour, and the governing traffic light was green. However, Mr. RIVAS
then saw a police vehicle approaching the intersection fast from Rockaway Avenue with its sirens
engaged. Mr. RIVAS notes that he then slowed and completely stopped his vehicle in the right most
lane in order to allow the police vehicle to pass. Mr. RIVAS’ vehicle was then suddenly struck in the
rear. Mr. RIVAS exited his vehicle and observed that a third vehicle had struck the vehicle that had
collided with his vehicle. Mr. RIVAS states that his vehicle sustained damage to the rear bumper, rear
right light, and trunk.
11. It has been held that a driver of a lead vehicle in a three-vehicle collision is free from
fault when said driver safely and properly brought his vehicle to a stop in order to yield the right of
way to an apparent emergency vehicle and was struck by the following vehicle. See Gavrilova v.
Stark, 129 A.D.3d 907, 909, 11 N.Y.S.3d 656.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (MOTION SEQUENCE 2) FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION
202.8(g) OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL RULES
12. Pursuant to section 202.8-g of the Uniform Rules of New York State Trial Courts,
motions for summary judgment shall contain a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered
paragraphs, containing material facts the movant contends there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried.
NY Ct R 202.8-g (a). Each statement of material fact must be followed by citation to evidence
submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion. NY Ct R 202.8-g (d).
4 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
13. A review of Plaintiff’s motion reveals plaintiff failed to annex the required statement of
material facts, which Plaintiff contends contain no genuine issues of fact to be tried.
WHEREFORE, for all the reasons aforesaid it is respectfully requested that this Court issue
an Order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants herein and dismiss the complaint and
all cross-claims against them, or, if judgment not granted to them, then judgment should be denied to
Plaintiff, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 13, 2023
CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY
Attorney(s) for the Defendant(s)
INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND
MARINO RIVAS,
Office Address:
1 MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, NY 11201
TEL: (866) 220-0176
Mailing Address:
5 Broadway, Suite 500
Freeport, NY 11520
TO: LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN BARENBAUM
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s)
BRITTANY STEVENS
2060 EASTERN PARKWAY
BROOKLYN, NY 11207
(718) 421-1111
JAMES F. BUTLER & ASSOCIATES
Attorney(s) for Co-Defendant(s)
RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP. and DAVID RIVAS LUNA
PO BOX 9040
300 JERICHO QUADRANGLE SUITE 260
JERICHO, NY 11753
(516) 229-6000
5 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
SCAHILL LAW GROUP P.C.
Attorney for Co-Defendant(s)
EMMANUEL MORGAN and ALI GEORGE
1065 STEWART AVENUE SUITE 210
BETHPAGE, NY 11714
(516) 294-5200
6 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
BRITTANY STEVENS, Index No.: 524933/2020
Plaintiff,
- against - WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION
RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP., DAVID RIVAS
LUNA, EMMANUEL MORGAN, ALI GEORGE, File No. 1079031
INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO
RIVAS,
Defendant(s).
Pursuant to Uniform Rules §202.8-b, I, Rachel H. Schefen, Esq. hereby certify that this
Affirmation complies with the word count limit of 7,000/4,200 words set forth therein. The total
number of words in this Affirmation, exclusive of any captions, tables of contents, tables of authorities
and signature blocks, is 1,258, pursuant to the word count in Microsoft Word, the word-processing
system used to prepare the document.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 13, 2023
CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY
Attorneys for Defendants
INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND
MARINO RIVAS,
Office Address:
1 MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, NY 11201
TEL: (866) 220-0176
Mailing Address:
5 Broadway, Suite 500
Freeport, NY 11520
7 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023
Index No.: 524933/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_______________________________________________________
BRITTANY STEVENS,
PLAINTIFF,
-against-
RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP., DAVID RIVAS LUNA,
EMMANUEL MORGAN, ALI GEORGE, INO TRANSPORTATION CORP.
AND MARINO RIVAS,
DEFENDANTS.
_______________________________________________________
AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION AND REPLY
_______________________________________________________
CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY
Office Address:
1 MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Mailing Address:
5 Broadway, Suite 500
Freeport, NY 11520
_______________________________________________________
Attorneys for Defendants: INO TRANSPORTATION CORP.
AND MARINO RIVAS
_______________________________________________________
Signed: pursuant to 22 NYRRR § 130-1.1-a
_______________________________________________________
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO.: 515534/2021 BRITTANY STEVENS, Plaintiff, - against - AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION AND REPLY RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP., DAVID RIVAS LUNA, EMMANUEL MORGAN, ALI GEORGE, INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS, FILE NO. 1080056 Defendants. CASE ID NO. ATIC-133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------X RACHEL H. SCHEFEN, an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to CPLR 2106: 1. I am associated with CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY, attorneys for the Defendants, INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS, and as such am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action as set forth, based upon the contents of the file maintained in this office. 2. I respectfully submit this Affirmation in Opposition and Reply to Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for summary judgment, which includes Opposition to Defendants’ underlying motion seeking relief in the form of an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS. 3. In opposition to Defendants’ underlying motion, Plaintiff submits a bare bones Affidavit that was clearly tailored by Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ vehicle was travelling at approximately 35-40 miles per hour before the accident occurred and came to a short stop before being struck in the rear. Respectfully, neither of these contentions raise an issue of 1 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 fact or overcome Defendants’ entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. As a passenger, Plaintiff’s estimation as to the speed of Defendants’ vehicle is merely speculative. Conclusory and speculative assertions which are not supported by any evidence fail to raise issues of fact. Trzepacz v. Jara, 11 A.D.3d 531 (2d Dep’t 2004). 4. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants’ vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear. The Appellate Division, Second Department, has held in a lineage of cases that summary judgment should be granted to a Plaintiff that is hit in the rear by the Defendant’s vehicle. In essence, these cases hold that a rear end collision with an automobile establishes a prime facie case of negligence on the part of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to explain how the accident occurred. The failure to do so requires, as a matter of law, a finding of summary judgment. Dileo v. Greenstein, 722 N.Y.S.2d 269 (2d Dep’t 2001); Girolamo v. Libby Line Transit, Inc., et al., 726 N.Y.S.2d 132 (2d Dep’t 2001); Shamah v. Richmond County Ambulance Serv. Inc., et al., 279 A.D.2d 564 (2d Dep’t 2001). 5. While Plaintiff has cross moved for summary judgement, Plaintiff contradictorily argues that Defendants’ underlying motion is premature. Defendants’ underlying motion is not premature. A Court may properly grant summary judgment even prior to depositions. Belitsis v. Airborne Express Freight Corp., 306 A.D. 2d (2d Dep’t 2003). See also Pena v. Castillo, 306 A.D.2d 519 (2d Dep’t 2003) (The Appellate Division held “[t]he Supreme Court improperly denied as premature the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as premature. (Citations omitted) Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability.” Clearly, Defendants’ motion is not premature. 6. In seeking summary judgment, Plaintiff relies exclusively on the fact that she was a 2 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 passenger to reach the conclusion that she is entitled to summary judgment on liability. Respectfully, Plaintiff fails to establish that Defendants herein are negligent as a matter of law such that the motion must be denied. 7. To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a Plaintiff must demonstrate: 1) a duty owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; 2) a breach of that duty; and 3) an injury suffered by the Plaintiff which was proximately caused by the breach. Solomon by Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026 (1985), Akins v Glen Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325 (1981). In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to submit admissible evidence establishing facts sufficient to demonstrate the liability of the Defendant herein as a matter of law. Rather, Plaintiff concludes that as she was a passenger, she is entitled to judgment. 8. On a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has the burden to offer evidence sufficient to eliminate any material issue of fact. Summary judgment will be denied, even in the absence of opposing papers, where Plaintiff's moving affidavits fail to meet the stringent evidentiary burden placed upon movant. Falk v. Goodman, 7 N.Y.2d 87, 91 (1959); Coley v. Michelin Tire Corporation, 99 A.D.2d 795 (2nd Dept. 1984) ("the burden of the movant to produce evidentiary facts is greater than on the opponent"); Cugini v. System Lumber Co., Inc., 111 A.D.2d 114 (1st Dept. 1981); Ahl v. Martin, 82 A.D.2d 938, (3d Dept. 1981); Greenberg v. Manlon Realty, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 968 (2nd Dept. 1974). 9. While Plaintiff as a passenger in one of the vehicles involved in the accident, may be found to be free from comparative fault for the occurrence, her burden is twofold and a Plaintiff must also establish liability as against one or more of the Defendants unless the liability of said Defendant is determined as a matter of law. See Espinoza v. Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.. 121 A.D.3d 640 (2d Dep’t 2014); Phillip v. D & D Carting Co., Inc., 136 A.D.3d 18 (2d Dep’t 2015). 10. As established in Defendants’ underlying motion, Defendants bear no liability for the 3 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 underlying accident. Defendant MARINO RIVAS has provided a sworn affidavit, a copy of which is annexed hereto as “EXHIBIT A”. Mr. RIVAS states that on January 21, 2020, he was operating a vehicle with livery plate number T644440C. Mr. RIVAS notes that on this date, he was travelling on Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn. He describes Eastern Parkway in this area is a two-way street with three lanes for moving traffic. Mr. RIVAS states that he was travelling in the right most lane. As Mr. RIVAS approached the intersection of Eastern Parkway and Rockaway Avenue, he was travelling at about 15 miles per hour, and the governing traffic light was green. However, Mr. RIVAS then saw a police vehicle approaching the intersection fast from Rockaway Avenue with its sirens engaged. Mr. RIVAS notes that he then slowed and completely stopped his vehicle in the right most lane in order to allow the police vehicle to pass. Mr. RIVAS’ vehicle was then suddenly struck in the rear. Mr. RIVAS exited his vehicle and observed that a third vehicle had struck the vehicle that had collided with his vehicle. Mr. RIVAS states that his vehicle sustained damage to the rear bumper, rear right light, and trunk. 11. It has been held that a driver of a lead vehicle in a three-vehicle collision is free from fault when said driver safely and properly brought his vehicle to a stop in order to yield the right of way to an apparent emergency vehicle and was struck by the following vehicle. See Gavrilova v. Stark, 129 A.D.3d 907, 909, 11 N.Y.S.3d 656. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (MOTION SEQUENCE 2) FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 202.8(g) OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL RULES 12. Pursuant to section 202.8-g of the Uniform Rules of New York State Trial Courts, motions for summary judgment shall contain a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, containing material facts the movant contends there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried. NY Ct R 202.8-g (a). Each statement of material fact must be followed by citation to evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion. NY Ct R 202.8-g (d). 4 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 13. A review of Plaintiff’s motion reveals plaintiff failed to annex the required statement of material facts, which Plaintiff contends contain no genuine issues of fact to be tried. WHEREFORE, for all the reasons aforesaid it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an Order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants herein and dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims against them, or, if judgment not granted to them, then judgment should be denied to Plaintiff, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Dated: Brooklyn, New York February 13, 2023 CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY Attorney(s) for the Defendant(s) INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS, Office Address: 1 MetroTech Center Brooklyn, NY 11201 TEL: (866) 220-0176 Mailing Address: 5 Broadway, Suite 500 Freeport, NY 11520 TO: LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN BARENBAUM Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s) BRITTANY STEVENS 2060 EASTERN PARKWAY BROOKLYN, NY 11207 (718) 421-1111 JAMES F. BUTLER & ASSOCIATES Attorney(s) for Co-Defendant(s) RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP. and DAVID RIVAS LUNA PO BOX 9040 300 JERICHO QUADRANGLE SUITE 260 JERICHO, NY 11753 (516) 229-6000 5 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 SCAHILL LAW GROUP P.C. Attorney for Co-Defendant(s) EMMANUEL MORGAN and ALI GEORGE 1065 STEWART AVENUE SUITE 210 BETHPAGE, NY 11714 (516) 294-5200 6 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS BRITTANY STEVENS, Index No.: 524933/2020 Plaintiff, - against - WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP., DAVID RIVAS LUNA, EMMANUEL MORGAN, ALI GEORGE, File No. 1079031 INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS, Defendant(s). Pursuant to Uniform Rules §202.8-b, I, Rachel H. Schefen, Esq. hereby certify that this Affirmation complies with the word count limit of 7,000/4,200 words set forth therein. The total number of words in this Affirmation, exclusive of any captions, tables of contents, tables of authorities and signature blocks, is 1,258, pursuant to the word count in Microsoft Word, the word-processing system used to prepare the document. Dated: Brooklyn, New York February 13, 2023 CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY Attorneys for Defendants INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS, Office Address: 1 MetroTech Center Brooklyn, NY 11201 TEL: (866) 220-0176 Mailing Address: 5 Broadway, Suite 500 Freeport, NY 11520 7 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2023 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 524933/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2023 Index No.: 524933/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS _______________________________________________________ BRITTANY STEVENS, PLAINTIFF, -against- RIVAS CONSTRUCTION CORP., DAVID RIVAS LUNA, EMMANUEL MORGAN, ALI GEORGE, INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS, DEFENDANTS. _______________________________________________________ AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION AND REPLY _______________________________________________________ CASSELLA AND SANDUSKY Office Address: 1 MetroTech Center Brooklyn, NY 11201 Mailing Address: 5 Broadway, Suite 500 Freeport, NY 11520 _______________________________________________________ Attorneys for Defendants: INO TRANSPORTATION CORP. AND MARINO RIVAS _______________________________________________________ Signed: pursuant to 22 NYRRR § 130-1.1-a _______________________________________________________ 8 of 8