Answer: Roger Paul Spezio Sr., Kathleen Spezio v. 3m Company, Individually and as Successor to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, A.O. Smith Water Products, Aii Acquisition Corporation, Llc Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Athlone Industries, Inc. and Holland Furnace Company, Air & Liquid Systems Corporation as Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Alcoa Inc., Individually and as successor in interest to Tilo Roofing Co., American Optical Corporation, Armstrong International, Inc., Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc. d/b/a Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Aurora Pump Company, Avco Corporation, A Textron Lycoming Division, Individually and as Successor to Lycoming Engines f/k/a Lycoming Manufacturing, Spencer Heater Company, and Spencer Heater Division of Lycoming, Bw/Ip International Co., formerly known as Borg Warner Industrial Products Inc., a former subsidiary of and successor to Borg Warner Corp. and Byron Jackson Pumps, Carrier Corporation, Cbs Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc, Successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cleaver-Brooks Company f/k/a Aqua-Chem, Inc., Columbia Boiler Company Of Pottstown, Compudyne Corporation, Individually and as Successor to York-Shipley, Continental Motors Inc., Continental Motors Inc. f/k/a Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., Individually and as successor to Continental Motors Inc. and Continental Motors Company, Crown Boiler Co., Dean Pump Division, Eaton Aeroquip, Inc. f/k/a Aeroquip Corporation, Ecr International, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Dunkirk, Dunkirk Boilers and Utica Boilers and Pennco, Inc., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan Company, Flowserve Us, Inc., solely as Successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, Inc. and Edward Vogt Valve Company, Fmc Corporation, Individually and as Successor to Northern Pump Company, Coffin and Peerless Pump Company, Gardner Denver, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Nash Engineering Company, Gardner Denver Nash, Llc, Individually and as Successor to Nash Engineering Company, General Electric Company, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell Corporation, Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc., Honeywell International, Inc., Individually and f/k/a Alliedsignal, Inc., and as Successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corp., Howden Buffalo, Inc., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to FB Sturtevant, The Howden Buffalo Group and Buffalo Fan, I.T.T. Industries, Inc., Individually and as successor to Bell & Gossett, International Comfort Products Llc, Individually and as Successor to Heil Heating and Cooling, Kohler Co., Lennox Industries, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Lennox Furnace Company and Ducane, Mario & Dibono Plastering Co. Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, New Yorker Boiler Company, Inc., Parker Hannifin Corporation, Individually and as Successor by Merger to Stratoflex, Inc. (Cleveland Brake Division) and EIS, Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems, Inc., Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, Inc., Redco Corp. f/k/a Crane Co., Rheem Manufacturing Company, Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Allen Bradley, Timken Heating Business and S. Co., Inc. f/k/a Scaife Company, as Successor in Interest to Rockwell Spring & Axle Company’s Timken Silent Automatic Division, Sid Harvey Industries, Inc., Sid Harvey Supply, Inc., Spence Engineering Company, Inc., Spencer Heater a Lycoming division of AVCO Corporation, Spirax Sarco, Inc., Taco, Inc., Technify Motor (Usa), Inc., Individually and as Successor to Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. f/k/a Continental Motors, Inc. and Continental Motors Company, Teledyne Technologies Inc., Individually and as Successor to Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. f/k/a Continental Motors, Inc., Continental Motors Company, Texaco, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, United Technologies Corporation, Individually and as Successor to Pratt & Whitney (Pratt & Whitney/Aircraft Division) and Franklin Engine Company f/k/ Aircooled Motors Company, Velan Valve Corp., Warren Pumps Llc, Individually and as Successor to The Quimby Pump Company, Weil Mclain, A Division of Marley-Wylain Company, William Powell Company (The), York International Corporation, Individually and as Successor to Frick Company

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                          INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
       COUNTY OF ULSTER

       ROGER PAUL SPEZIO, SR. and KATHLEEN
       SPEZIO,

                                                                  Index No. EF2023-99
                                          Plaintiffs,             ANSWER WITH
                                                                  CROSS-CLAIMS
       -against-

       3M COMPANY, Individually and as Successor to
             Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
             Company;
       A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS;
       AII ACQUISITION CORPORATION, LLC,
             Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to
             Athlone Industries, Inc. and Holland Furnace
             Company;
       AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as
             Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.;
       ALCOA INC., Individually and as successor in interest
             to Tilo Roofing Co.;
       AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION;
       ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
       ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., INC. d/b/a Weir Valves
             & Controls USA Inc.;
       AURORA PUMP COMPANY;
       AVCO CORPORATION, A Textron Lycoming
             Division, Individually and as Successor to
             Lycoming Engines f/k/a Lycoming
             Manufacturing, Spencer Heater Company,
             and Spencer Heater Division of Lycoming;
       BW/IP INTERNATIONAL CO., formerly known as
             Borg Warner Industrial Products Inc., a former
             subsidiary of and successor to Borg Warner
             Corp. and Byron Jackson Pumps;
       CARRIER CORPORATION;
       CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a
             Viacom Inc, Successor by merger to CBS
             Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a
             Westinghouse Electric Corporation;
       CLEAVER BROOKS COMPANY f/k/a Aqua Chem,
             Inc.;
       COLUMBIA BOILER COMPANY OF
             POTTSTOWN;




                                                        1 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                             INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       COMPUDYNE CORPORATION, Individually and as
               Successor to York-Shipley;
       CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.;
       CONTINENTAL MOTORS INC. f/k/a Teledyne
               Continental Motors, Inc., Individually and as
               successor to Continental Motors Inc. and
               Continental Motors Company;
       CROWN BOILER CO.;
       DEAN PUMP DIVISION;
       EATON AEROQUIP, INC. f/k/a Aeroquip
               Corporation;
       ECR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Individually and as
               Successor to Dunkirk, Dunkirk Boilers and
               Utica Boilers and Pennco, Inc.;
       ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
               Individually and as Successor to Tappan and
               Copes Vulcan;
       FLOWSERVE US, INC., solely as Successor to
               Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward
               Valves, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, Inc. and
               Edward Vogt Valve Company;
       FMC CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor
               to Northern Pump Company, Coffin and
               Peerless Pump Company;
       GARDNER-DENVER, INC., Individually and as
               Successor to Nash Engineering Company;
       GARDNER-DENVER NASH LLC, Individually and
               as Successor to Nash Engineering Company;
       GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;
       GOULDS PUMPS INC.;
       GRINNELL CORPORATION;
       HOFFMAN/NEW YORKER, INC.;
       HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
               Individually and f/k/a AlliedSignal, Inc., and as
               Successor-in-Interest to The Bendix Corp.;
       HOWDEN BUFFALO, INC., Individually and as
               Successor In Interest to FB Sturtevant, The
               Howden Buffalo Group and Buffalo Fan;
       I.T.T. INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as
               successor to Bell & Gossett;
       INTERNATIONAL COMFORT PRODUCTS LLC,
               Individually and as Successor to Heil Heating
               and Cooling;
       KOHLER CO.;
       LENNOX INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as
               Successor to Lennox Furnace Company and




                                                        2 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                        INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




             Ducane;
       MARIO & DIBONO PLASTERING CO. INC.;
       METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
       NEW YORKER BOILER COMPANY, INC.;
       PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Individually
             and as Successor by Merger to Stratoflex, Inc.
             (Cleveland Brake Division) and EIS;
       PRATT & WHITNEY MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS,
             INC.;
       PRATT & WHITNEY POWER SYSTEMS, INC.;
       REDCO CORP., f/k/a Crane Co.;
       RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.;
       ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC., Individually
             and as Successor to Timken Heating Business
             and S. Co., Inc. f/k/a Scaife Company, as
             Successor in Interest to Rockwell Spring &
             Axle Company's Timken Silent Automatic
             Division;
       SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC.;
       SID HARVEY SUPPLY, INC.;
       SPENCE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.;
       SPENCER HEATER, a Lycoming division of AVCO
             Corporation;
       SPIRAX SARCO, INC.;
       TACO, INC.;
       TECHNIFY MOTOR (USA), INC., Individually
             and as Successor to Teledyne Continental
             Motors, Inc. f/k/a Continental Motors, Inc.,
             and Continental Motors Company;
       TELEDYNE TECHNOLOGIES INC., Individually
             and as Successor to Teledyne Continental
             Motors, Inc. f/k/a Continental Motors, Inc.,
             Continental Motors Company;
       TEXACO, INC.;
       UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
       UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
             Individually and as Successor to Pratt &
             Whitney (Pratt & Whitney/Aircraft Division)
             and Franklin Engine Company f/k/a Aircooled
             Motors Company;
       VELAN VALVE CORP.;
       WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Individually and as
             Successor to The Quimby Pump Company;
       WEIL McLAIN, a division of Marley Wylain
             Company;
       WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY (THE);




                                                    3 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                       INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
            Individually and as Successor to Frick
            Company,

                                     Defendants.
       __________________________________________

              Defendant Howmet Aerospace Inc. f/k/a Arconic Inc. f/k/a Alcoa Inc. (incorrectly sued as “Alcoa

       Inc., Individually and as successor in interest to Tilo Roofing Co.”)(“Defendant Arconic”) by its attorneys

       WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA, P.C., as and for its ANSWER to Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint,

       states upon information and belief as follows:

              1.      Answering paragraphs 1, 3, 6-8, 10-68, and 190-191 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant

       Arconic is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations

       contained in said paragraphs and on that basis denies them.

              2.      Answering paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant Arconic is without knowledge

       or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether ROGER PAUL SPEZIO, SR. was diagnosed with

       mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos and on that basis denies the allegations. By way of

       further Answer, Defendant Arconic denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs in any respect.

              3.      Answering paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant Arconic admits that Plaintiffs

       purport to define the term “Defendants”, but denies, with respect to Defendant Arconic, that Defendant

       Arconic is responding to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on behalf of any entity other Howmet Aerospace Inc. f/k/a

       Arconic Inc. f/k/a Alcoa Inc. (incorrectly sued as “Alcoa Inc., Individually and as successor in interest to

       Tilo Roofing Co.”) By way of further answer, Defendant Arconic is without knowledge or information

       sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations to the extent they are related to parties other

       than Defendant Arconic and on that basis denies them.

              4.      Answering paragraphs 5 and 69 of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic

       denies the allegations contained in said paragraphs as they relate to Defendant Arconic, and denies




                                                         4 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                       INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       knowledge and information as they pertain to co-defendants other than Defendant Arconic, and on that

       basis denies them.

              5.      Answering paragraphs 9 and 138 of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic

       denies the allegations contained in said paragraphs.

              6.      Answering paragraphs 70-74, 78-85, 92-98, 129-137, 170-171, and 188 of Plaintiffs’

       Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic denies the allegations to the extent they are directed to Defendant

       Arconic, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

       allegations to the extent they are related to parties other than Defendant Arconic and on that basis denies

       them. By way of further response, Defendant Arconic specifically denies any allegation(s) of strict

       liability; negligence; recklessness; carelessness; failure; breach; misrepresentation; false representations;

       conspiracy; market share liability; or fraudulent, unjust, knowing, intentional, wrongful, willful,

       misleading, deceptive, immoral, malicious, wanton, or other culpable conduct on the part of Defendant

       Arconic contained in said paragraphs.

              7.      Defendant Arconic believes paragraphs 75-76, 87-90, 99-100, 139-143, 172-173, and

       175-186 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains a legal argument rather than a fact that can be admitted or

       denied. To the extent this is a legal argument rather than facts, Defendant Arconic declines to

       answer. To the extent an answer is necessary, Defendant Arconic denies paragraphs 75-76, 87-90, 99-

       100, 139-143, 172-173, and 175-186.

              8.      Answering paragraphs 102-119 of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic

       states that the allegations contained in said paragraphs are directed to owners, possessors, lessors, lessees,

       operators, controllers, managers, supervisors, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, and/or

       engineers, or others who were responsible for the maintenance, control and/or safety at premises on which

       Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to asbestos, and thus no response is required as Defendant Arconic is not




                                                         5 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                       INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       any of the foregoing in this action. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Arconic denies the

       allegations to the extent they are directed to Defendant Arconic, and is without knowledge or information

       sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations to the extent they are related to parties other

       than Defendant Arconic and on that basis denies them.

               9.     Answering paragraphs 121-127 of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic

       states that the allegations contained in said paragraphs are directed to Defendant METROPOLITAN LIFE

       INSURANCE COMPANY and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is required,

       Defendant Arconic denies the allegations to the extent they are directed to Defendant Arconic, and is

       without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations to the extent

       they are related to parties other than Defendant Arconic and on that basis denies them.

               10.    Answering paragraphs 145-157 of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic

       states that the allegations contained in said paragraphs are directed to “contractors,” and thus no response

       is required as Defendant Arconic is not a “contractor.” To the extent a response is required, Defendant

       Arconic denies the allegations to the extent they are directed to Defendant Arconic, and is without

       knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations to the extent they are

       related to parties other than Defendant Arconic and on that basis denies them.

               11.    Answering paragraphs 159-166 of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic

       states that the allegations contained in said paragraphs are directed to “Premises Owners” and thus no

       response is required as Defendant Arconic is not a “Premises Owner” in this action. To the extent a

       response is required, Defendant Arconic denies the allegations to the extent they are directed to Defendant

       Arconic, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

       allegations to the extent they are related to parties other than Defendant Arconic and on that basis denies

       them.




                                                         6 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                    INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




               12.    Answering paragraphs 167-169 of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic

       states that the allegations contained in said paragraphs are directed to “Shipping Defendants” and thus no

       response is required as Defendant Arconic is not a “Shipping Defendant” in this action. To the extent a

       response is required, Defendant Arconic denies the allegations to the extent they are directed to Defendant

       Arconic, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

       allegations to the extent they are related to parties other than Defendant Arconic and on that basis denies

       them.

               13.    With respect to paragraphs 77, 86, 91, 101, 120, 128, 144, 158, 174, 187, and 189 of

       Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Defendant Arconic admits such allegations as are elsewhere herein

       admitted and denies such allegations as are elsewhere herein denied.

               14.     Defendant Arconic denies each and every allegation set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint not

       heretofore specifically admitted, denied or otherwise controverted.

                                         FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

               The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

                                       SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

               This defendant acted reasonably and with due care toward the plaintiff(s) and violated no duty

       owed to the plaintiff(s).

                                        THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

               The injuries and damages complained of were the proximate result of the negligence of third

       parties over whom this defendant had no control or right of control.

                                       FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

               This defendant denies that it was guilty of any negligence or breach of warranty which directly

       caused or proximately contributed to plaintiff(s)' alleged damages.




                                                        7 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                    INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




                                         FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The alleged injuries and damages were the result of the plaintiff(s)' sole negligence.

                                         SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The plaintiff(s)' contributory negligence was greater than the negligence of the answering

       defendant. In the event that such contributory negligence is adjudged not to be greater than the negligence

       of answering defendant, the plaintiff(s)' damages shall be diminished by the percentage of plaintiff(s)'

       contributory negligence.

                                       SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The Court lacks jurisdiction over this defendant.

                                        EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.

                                         NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The venue of this action is improper and this defendant reserves the right to move for a transfer.

                                         TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The Statute of Limitations and/or Statute of Repose bars plaintiff(s)' action, and accordingly, this

       defendant reserves the right to move for dismissal at or before trial.

                                      ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              This defendant denies breach of any warranties, expressed or implied.

                                       TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The plaintiff(s) had full knowledge of all facts, circumstances and conditions existing with respect

       to the use of any product mentioned in the Complaint and voluntarily assumed the risk from and attendant

       to the use of products manufactured or supplied by this defendant.




                                                         8 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                        INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




                                     THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              This defendant is not liable to the plaintiff(s) in strict liability in tort.

                                     FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The plaintiff(s) consented to the acts alleged in the Complaint.

                                       FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Since plaintiff(s)' employers are primarily liable for plaintiff(s)' current injuries and plaintiff(s)

       brought or have the right to bring an action for workmen's compensation benefits, plaintiff(s)' damages, if

       any, is barred by the exclusive remedial provisions under the workers' compensation law and other

       applicable state laws. In the alternative, the damages should at least be reduced by the amount of

       compensation received from the plaintiff(s)' employers.

                                       SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The incident and injuries complained of were caused by unauthorized, unintended and improper

       use of the products complained of and as a result of plaintiff(s)' failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary

       care, caution or vigilance.

                                     SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff(s)' injuries and damages were caused by the superseding and intervening acts or the fault

       of other parties over whom this defendant had no control and for whose actions this defendant is not liable.

                                     EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The plaintiff(s)' action is barred by the Doctrine of Laches.

                                     NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              This defendant never designed, manufactured, sold or distributed a defective product which caused

       plaintiff(s)' damages.




                                                           9 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                     INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




                                     TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Inasmuch as the plaintiff(s) are unable to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly

       caused their injuries, plaintiff(s) fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If relief were

       granted in the absence of product identification, it would contravene with defendant's constitutional rights

       to substantive and procedural due process of law and equal protection, as well as, defendant's

       constitutional rights to protection against the taking of private property for public use without just

       compensation as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

                                   TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The applicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code bar the alleged claims.

                                  TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              At all times relevant hereto, this defendant followed plans, specifications and contracts set by a

       governmental body and did not deviate from said plans, contracts and specifications, therefore, its actions

       are cloaked with immunity.

                                   TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              At all times relevant hereto, this defendant complied with all applicable laws, regulations and

       standards.

                                  TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The plaintiff(s)' alleged injuries were caused in whole or in part by the misuse, abuse and/or

       unauthorized alteration of this defendant or other defendants’ products.

                                   TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              All oral warranties upon which plaintiff(s) allegedly relied upon are inadmissible and unavailable

       due to the applicable statute of frauds.




                                                       10 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                      INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




                                   TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff(s)' claim for punitive damages is barred by the proscription of the Eighth Amendment to

       the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting

       the imposition of excessive fines.

                                 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff(s)' claim for punitive damages is barred by the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth

       Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

                                  TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The plaintiff(s)' action is barred by the doctrine of estoppel and waiver.

                                   TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff(s)' claim for punitive damages is barred by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth

       Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the New York State Constitution.

                                      THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Any benefit or other compensation received by plaintiff(s) from any other defendants or any

       collateral source, including workers compensation, social security death benefits and/or insurance, should

       reduce or set off the amount of any judgment against this defendant.

                                    THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff(s) failed to mitigate or reduce his/her alleged injuries.

                                  THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              All causes of action based on expressed or implied warranties are legally insufficient since

       plaintiff(s) failed to allege privity of contract between plaintiff(s) and answering defendant.

                                   THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Any asbestos exposure from this defendant's products are so minimal that there is insufficient




                                                        11 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                  INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       evidence that this defendant's products caused plaintiff(s)' alleged injuries.

                                  THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Even if plaintiff(s) can establish a breach of warranty, plaintiff(s) failed to provide prompt and

       proper notice of said breach of warranty to the answering defendant.

                                    THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff(s) did not directly or indirectly purchase any asbestos-containing products from this

       defendant.   Therefore, plaintiff(s) neither received nor relied upon any representation or warranty

       allegedly made regarding this defendant's products.

                                    THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff(s)' claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

                                  THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              The Answering Defendant incorporates and adopts all affirmative defenses raised and pled by any

       other defendants except such defenses which refer to this answering defendant. Additionally, defendant

       specifically reserves the right to amend this answer and assert any additional defenses that might become

       available as discovery continues.

                                   THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff was not exposed to any asbestos or any other injury-producing substances during his

       presence on or about any premises owned by answering defendant.

                                    THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              In the event that Plaintiff was employed by answering defendant, Plaintiff’s sole and exclusive

       remedies are under the Worker’s Compensation Law of the State of New York.

                                       FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              At all times relevant hereto, the knowledge of the Plaintiff’s employer(s) was superior to that of




                                                        12 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                       INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       answering defendant with respect to possible health hazards associated with Plaintiff’s employment, and,

       therefore, if there was any duty to warn or provide protection to Plaintiff, it was the duty of said

       employer(s), not of answering defendant, and breach of that duty was an intervening and/or superseding

       cause of the injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff.

                                     FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              At all times during the conduct of their corporate operations, the agents, servants, and/or

       employees of answering defendant used proper methods in their operation of all answering defendant’s

       premises, facilities and production activities in conformity to the available knowledge and research of the

       scientific and industrial communities.

                                   FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              To the extent that plaintiff sustained injuries from his presence on or about premises owned,

       controlled or used by answering defendant, which answering defendant denies, such injuries resulted from

       the unforeseeable misconduct, failure to exercise due care and/or omissions of Plaintiff, or by other parties,

       over whom answering defendant had no control or right to control.

                                    FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              At all relevant times, answering defendant provided all lawful invitees a safe place to work on and

       about all premises owned by answering defendant.

                                   FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff never purchased, directly or indirectly, any asbestos-containing products or materials

       from answering defendant, nor did answering defendant ever supply Plaintiff with asbestos-containing

       products or materials.

                                    FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Plaintiff lacks capacity and/or standing to maintain a claim for relief against answering defendant




                                                        13 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                        INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




       with respect to injuries alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff.

                                    FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Answering Defendant never directed or controlled any of Plaintiff’s work activities.

                                  FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              At all relevant times, the state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge, the state of the

       art, practice, and prevailing industry standards regarding asbestos-containing products was such that

       answering defendant neither knew, had reason to know, nor could have known of any foreseeable or

       significant risk or harm to Plaintiff in the normal or expected use of answering defendant’s premises.

                                   FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was never a lawful invitee on any premises owned, used or

       controlled by answering defendant.

                                    FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

              Answering defendant was under no legal duty to warn Plaintiff of any hazards from the use of any

       asbestos-containing products. The actual purchasers and/or those under the purchasers’ control and

       Plaintiff’s employer(s), among others, were in a far better position to warn Plaintiff and, if any such

       warning was legally required, which is expressly denied; their failure to do so was a superseding and

       proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

                                                    CROSSCLAIMS

              1.      This defendant demands contribution, jointly and severally, from all other defendants,

       potential defendants, and potential third-party defendant.

              2.      This defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the plaintiff, but asserts that if it is in

       any way found to be liable, such liability is passive, indirect and secondary, and answering defendant

       hereby demands indemnification from all responsible and liable co-defendants.




                                                          14 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM                                                    INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




          WHEREFORE, Defendant Arconic Demands judgment as follows:

             1.     Dismissing the Complaint with prejudice as to Defendant Arconic;

             2.     Diminishing the damages otherwise recoverable pursuant to Article 14 of the
                    New York CPLR;

             3.     Diminishing the damages otherwise recoverable pursuant to Article 14-A of the
                    New York CPLR;

             4.     Diminishing the damages otherwise recoverable pursuant to Article 16 of the
                    New York CPLR;

             5.     For contribution and indemnification from the Co-Defendants herein for all or a portion of
                    any judgment rendered herein in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Arconic
                    including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

             6.     For such other, further and different relief as to the Court shall seem just, proper
                    and equitable.


       DATED:       June 22, 2023
                    Buffalo, New York

                                                           WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA


                                                           ______________________________
                                                           James F. Tate, Esq.
                                                           Jessica J Burgasser, Esq.
                                                           Attorneys for Defendant
                                                           Howmet Aerospace Inc. f/k/a Arconic Inc. f/k/a
                                                           Alcoa Inc., incorrectly sued as Alcoa Inc.,
                                                           Individually and as successor in interest to Tilo
                                                           Roofing Co.
                                                           295 Main Street, Suite 900
                                                           Buffalo, New York 14203
                                                           (716) 427-7360

       TO:   Joseph W. Belluck, Esq.
             Belluck & Fox, LLP
             Attorneys for Plaintiffs
             546 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
             New York, NY 10036
             (212) 681-1575




                                                      15 of 16
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/23/2023 02:09 PM           INDEX NO. EF2023-99
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2023




                                16 of 16