On January 01, 2017 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Jerry Lee Salmon , Executor Of The Estate Of Urlin Salmon, Deceased, and Aerco International, Inc., Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Buffalo Pumps Division, Aurora Pump Company, A.W. Chesterton Company, Bmce Inc., F K A United Centrifugal Pump, Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. As Successor-By-Merger To Borg-Warner Corporation, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Bwdac Inc., F K A Bwd Automotive Corporation, Bw Ip Inc., Carrier Corporation Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Cbs Corporation, F K A Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger To Cbs Corporation, F K A Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Certainteed Corporation, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Cooper Industries Llc, Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal Usa, Inc., Dravo Corporation, Elliott Company, Flowserve Corporation As Successor To Duriron Inc. And Durco International Inc., Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Gardner Denver Inc., General Electric Company, Genuine Parts Company, Georgia Pacific Corporation Individually And As Successor To Bestwall Gypsum Company, Goulds Pump Incorporated, Greene Tweed & Co, Llc, Honeywell International Inc. F K A Allied Signal Inc., As Successor In Interest To Bendix Corp., Imo Industries Inc., Industrial Holdings Corporation F K A The Carborundum, Ingersoll-Rand Company, Jerguson Gage & Valve Company, John Doe 1 Through John Doe 75, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Riley Power Inc. F K A Riley Stoker Corporation, Spirax Sarco, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Velan Valve Corporation, Warren Pumps Llc, William Powell Company, for Torts - Asbestos in the District Court of New York County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
INDEX NO. 190008/2017 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2017 03:30 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF 01/13/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK URLIN SALMON, NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION Plaintiff(s), (NYCAL) vs. INDEX NO.: 190008/17 A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., VERIFIED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND CROSSCLAIMS Defendant, Riley Power Inc. f/k/a Riley Stoker Corporation (“Riley”), by its attorneys, Waters, McPherson, McNeill, P.C, answering the Verified Complaint ("Complaint"), filed on January 6, 2017, respectfully shows to this Court and alleges, upon information and belief, as follows: PARTIES - PLAINTIFFS 1. As to paragraph designated “1” of the Complaint, Riley answers the Complaint by reference to its Standard Answer to the NYCAL Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC Standard Asbestos Complaint and raises all of the same affirmative defenses and crossclaims contained in it as if fully set forth. 2. Denies allegations of exposure to asbestos and injury, and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph designated "2" of the Complaint and leaves the plaintiff to his proofs. PARTIES - DEFENDANT 3. Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations lof5 contained in paragraphs designated "3" through "34" and "36" through "43" of the Complaint. 4. As to paragraph designated “35” of the Complaint, Riley admits that it may have conducted business in the State of New York. 5. No allegations of fact are asserted requiring an answer to paragraph designated “44” of the Complaint, and all questions of law are referred to the Court. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Admits that it may have conducted business in the State of New York but denies all other allegations contained in paragraph designated "45" of the Complaint insofar as they relate to it and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth insofar as they relate to other parties. ANSWERING THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 7. With respect to paragraph designated "46" of the Complaint, repeats and realleges each of its answers to paragraphs designated "1" through "45" of the Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth. 8. As to paragraphs designated “47” and “48” of the Complaint, Riley answers the Complaint by reference to its Standard Answer to the NYCAL Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC Standard Asbestos Complaint and raises all of the same affirmative defenses and crossclaims contained in it as if fully set forth. ANSWERING THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9. With respect to paragraph designated "49" of the Complaint, repeats and realleges each of its answers to paragraphs designated "1" through "48" of the Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth. 2 0f 5 10. As to paragraphs designated “50” and “51” of the Complaint, Riley answers the Complaint by reference to its Standard Answer to the NYCAL Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC Standard Asbestos Complaint and raises all of the same affirmative defenses and crossclaims contained in it as if fully set forth. ANSWERING THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Complaint did not assert a Third or Fourth Cause of Action) 11. With respect to paragraph designated "52" of the Complaint, repeats and realleges each of its answers to paragraphs designated "1" through "51" of the Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth. 12. As to paragraphs designated “53” and “54” of the Complaint, Riley answers the Complaint by reference to its Standard Answer to the NYCAL Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC Standard Asbestos Complaint and raises all of the same affirmative defenses and crossclaims contained in it as if fully set forth. ANSWERING THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13. With respect to paragraph designated "55" of the Complaint, repeats and realleges each of its answers to paragraphs designated "1" through "54" of the Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth. 14. Makes no response to the allegations of paragraph designated “56” of the Complaint as they are not directed to it but leaves the plaintiffs to their proofs WHEREFORE, Riley Power Inc. demands judgment in its favor dismissing the Complaint, that in the event judgment is rendered against it, defendant demands judgment on its crossclaims against the co-defendants and third-party defendants, that the responsibilities of all the parties be apportioned, together with its costs, disbursements, and 3 0f 5 reasonable attorneys’ fees and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York January 2017 WATER yom N, MeNEILL, P.C. BY: fl ——— LGIOVA | REGINA Atto or Defendant, Rile r Inc. 233Broadway- Suite 2220 New York, New York 10279 (212) 227-7878 To: Simmons Hanly Conroy 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 (212) 784-6400 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) 4o0f 5 ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss. COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) Giovanni Regina, being duly sworn, deposes and says: | am a member of the firm of Waters, McPherson, McNeill, P.C., attorneys for the defendant Riley Power Inc. | have read the foregoing Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint on behalf of the defendant and know the contents thereof; that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters | believe to be true; that the reason this Verification is made by the undersigned instead of the defendant is because defendant does not reside within the County of New York where the undersigned's office is located. The grounds of my belief as to all matters in the aforesaid Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint are based upon a general investigation of the facts ein jl’ —— Sworn ani this_/9 3 d“day of January, 2017. Notary Public of the State of New Jersey My Commission Expires August 13, 2020 947280_1 5 of 5