On January 10, 2017 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Sotheby'S, Inc.,
and
Ying Ming Lin,
for Commercial - UCC
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SOTHEBY’S INC.,
Index No. 650164/2017
Plaintiff,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
vs. YING MING LIN
YING MING LIN,
Defendants.
As and for his response to the January 10, 2017 Complaint (the “Complaint”) of plaintiff
Sotheby’s, Inc. (“Sotheby’s”), the defendant Ying Ming Lin (“Lin”) alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
2. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
3. Lin admits the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is
required.
5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is
required.
FACTS
6. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
1
1 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017
7. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
8. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
9. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
10. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
11. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
12. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
13. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
14. As to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Lin admits that he has made no payments for the
alleged Works, but denies that any payments were or are or will be due.
15. Lin admits the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELEIF
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
17. Lin repeats and realleges the responses set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16, above.
18. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
2
2 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017
20. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
21. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matters alleged in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
22. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. Lin lacked capacity to enter into a contract with Sotheby’s.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26. Any alleged contract is void for lack of mutual consent.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27. Sotheby’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28. Any damages sustained by Sotheby’s are the result of Sotheby’s own conduct.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
29. Sotheby’s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
30. Sotheby’s claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
31. Sotheby’s claims are barred because Sotheby’s failed to mitigate its own damages.
DEFENDANT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Defendant demands a trial by Jury.
3
3 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court enter judgment denying all of Plaintiff’s
claims for relief, that Plaintiff takes nothing by this action, and that Defendant be awarded their
costs and disbursements in defending this action.
Dated: March 15, 2017 YERMAN & JIA, LLC
New York, New York
_______________________________
By: Matthew C. Heerde, Esq.
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (347) 460-3588
Fax: (347)-535-3588
Email: mheerde@yermangroup.com
Attorneys for Defendant Ying Ming Lin
4
4 of 4
Document Filed Date
March 15, 2017
Case Filing Date
January 10, 2017
Category
Commercial - UCC
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SOTHEBY’S INC., Index No. 650164/2017 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT vs. YING MING LIN YING MING LIN, Defendants. As and for his response to the January 10, 2017 Complaint (the “Complaint”) of plaintiff Sotheby’s, Inc. (“Sotheby’s”), the defendant Ying Ming Lin (“Lin”) alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 2. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 3. Lin admits the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. FACTS 6. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 1 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017 7. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 8. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 9. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 10. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 11. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 12. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 13. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 14. As to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Lin admits that he has made no payments for the alleged Works, but denies that any payments were or are or will be due. 15. Lin admits the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELEIF (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 17. Lin repeats and realleges the responses set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16, above. 18. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 2 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017 20. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 21. Lin lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters alleged in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them. 22. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 23. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. Lin denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. Lin lacked capacity to enter into a contract with Sotheby’s. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. Any alleged contract is void for lack of mutual consent. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. Sotheby’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. Any damages sustained by Sotheby’s are the result of Sotheby’s own conduct. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29. Sotheby’s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. Sotheby’s claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 31. Sotheby’s claims are barred because Sotheby’s failed to mitigate its own damages. DEFENDANT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendant demands a trial by Jury. 3 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2017 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 650164/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2017 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court enter judgment denying all of Plaintiff’s claims for relief, that Plaintiff takes nothing by this action, and that Defendant be awarded their costs and disbursements in defending this action. Dated: March 15, 2017 YERMAN & JIA, LLC New York, New York _______________________________ By: Matthew C. Heerde, Esq. 225 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 460-3588 Fax: (347)-535-3588 Email: mheerde@yermangroup.com Attorneys for Defendant Ying Ming Lin 4 4 of 4