Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------x
YONG KANG MEDICAL PLLC, Index No: 516705/2023
Plaintiff,
vs. REPLY TO
DEFENDANT LUM’S
TSZHODERRICK LUM, WELLNESS FAMILY
COUNTERCLAIMS AND
HEALTH NP, P.C., LI HONG YE, and DR. LI
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PEDIATRIC P.C.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff Yong Kang Medical PLLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, Pitcoff Law
Group, PC, answers the separately numbered paragraphs in the Verified Answer with Affirmative
Defenses and Counterclaims (Doc. No. 18) (“Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims”) of Defendants
Tszhoderrick Lum and Wellness Family Health NP, P.C. (“Answering Defendants”) in this action
and asserts affirmative and other defenses as follows:
REPLY TO DEFENSES
74. Paragraph 74 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no
answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “First Defense”
“Failure to State a Claim”
75. Paragraph 75 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no
answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
Page 1 of 17
1 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “Second Defense”
“Good Faith”
76. It is denied that Answering Defendants always acted in good faith. It also is denied that
there was unethical conduct on the part of Plaintiff. It is further denied that the
Answering Defendants did not take confidential information from Plaintiff. All
remaining allegations of Paragraph 76 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “Third Defense”
“Waiver, Estoppel, Laches, and Unclean Hands”
77. The allegations of Paragraph 77 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
78. The allegations of Paragraph 78 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
79. It is admitted that Defendant Lum lost his board certification. It is further admitted that
Defendant Lum was audited and removed from the Chinese American Independent
Practice Association (CAIPA). Plaintiff denies the accusations that he is somehow in
control of both Defendant Lum’s board certification and Defendant Lum’s position in
CAIPA. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 79 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims
are denied.
80. The allegations of Paragraph 80 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
81. Paragraph 81 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims alleges Defendant Lum’s mindset
and/or thought process, which Plaintiff would have no way of knowing or proving, so
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
82. The allegations of Paragraph 82 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
83. It is admitted that Defendant Lum began his own, competing practice while working
for Plaintiff. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 83 of Defendant Lum’s
Page 2 of 17
2 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
Counterclaims allege Defendant Lum’s mindset and/or thought process, which Plaintiff
would have no way of knowing or proving, so no answer is required. To the extent any
answer is required, it is denied.
84. The allegations of Paragraph 84 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
85. The allegations of Paragraph 85 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
86. The allegations of Paragraph 86 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
87. The allegations of Paragraph 87 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
88. The allegations of Paragraph 88 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
89. The allegations of Paragraph 89 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
90. The allegations of Paragraph 90 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
91. The allegations of Paragraph 91 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
92. It is admitted that Plaintiff enforced the Employment Agreement’s non-compete terms
and terminated Defendant Lum for violating said terms.
93. Paragraph 93 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no
answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “Fourth Defense”
“Anticipatory Breach”
94. It is admitted that Plaintiff would, and in fact did, adhere to required legal and ethical
standards. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 93 of Defendant Lum’s
Counterclaims are admitted.
95. The allegations of Paragraph 95 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
96. It is admitted that Defendant Lum was and is bound by strict ethical and legal standards,
the breach of which could have professional and legal repercussions on Defendant
Page 3 of 17
3 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
Lum. It is denied that Plaintiff had unlawful or unethical practices, or that Plaintiff
posed any threats to Defendant Lum’s ethical or legal standards. All remaining
allegations of Paragraph 93 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
97. The allegations of Paragraph 97 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “Fifth Defense”
“Violations of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing”
98. Paragraph 98 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no
answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “Sixth Defense”
“Modification”
99. It is admitted that Lum’s conduct constituted a breach of the Employment Agreement.
It is generally denied that there was any modification of the Employment Agreement;
and it is specifically denied that any potential modification met the requirements of
Section 6.3 of the Employment Agreement (“Waiver”), which requires, “The waiver
by any party to a breach of any provision of the Agreement must be in writing and
signed by such party to be effective, and shall not operate or be construed as a waiver
of any subsequent breach of the Agreement.”
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “Seventh Defense”
“Enforcement of the Employment Agreement’s Anti-Competitive Provisions
Would Offend Public Policy”
100. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff “is and was engaged in frequent ethical
violations.” The remaining allegations of Paragraph 100 of Defendant Lum’s
Counterclaims are denied.
Page 4 of 17
4 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
101. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has or had “numerous ethical violations/lapses.”
The remaining allegations of Paragraph 100 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims state
a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required,
it is denied.
Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant Lum’s “Eighth Defense”
“The Employment Agreement’s Draconian
“Liquidated Damages” Provision is an Unenforceable Penalty
102. The allegations of Paragraph 102 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
103. Paragraph 103 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT LUM’S VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “First Counterclaim”
“Unpaid Overtime in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207”
104. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
105. Paragraph 105 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
106. The allegations of Paragraph 106 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
107. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
108. Paragraph 108 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
109. The allegations of Paragraph 109 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
110. The allegations of Paragraph 110 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Page 5 of 17
5 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
111. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
112. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
113. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
114. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
115. Paragraph 115 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
Re: “Interstate Commerce”
116. Paragraph 116 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
117. The allegations of Paragraph 117 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
118. Paragraph 118 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
119. The allegations of Paragraph 119 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
120. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations asserted in Paragraph 120 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims.
121. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations asserted in Paragraph 121 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims.
122. Paragraph 122 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
123. Paragraph 123 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
124. Paragraph 124 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
Page 6 of 17
6 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
125. The allegations of Paragraph 125 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Plaintiff’s Denial – Re: “Yong Kang’s Wage and Hour Violations Were Willful”
126. The allegations of Paragraph 126 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
127. The allegations of Paragraph 127 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
128. The allegations of Paragraph 128 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
129. The allegations of Paragraph 129 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “Second Counterclaim”
“Unpaid Overtime in Violation of § 142-2.2 of Title 12 of
New York’s Codes, Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”) and
New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 663(1), 652(1) and 190, et seq.”
130. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
131. Paragraph 131 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), a written document that speaks for
itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies
any remaining allegations of Paragraph 131.
132. Paragraph 132 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies any remaining
allegations of Paragraph 132.
133. The allegations of Paragraph 133 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted.
134. Paragraph 134 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies any remaining
allegations of Paragraph 134.
Page 7 of 17
7 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
135. Paragraph 135 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
136. Paragraph 136 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies any remaining
allegations of Paragraph 136.
137. Paragraph 137 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
137 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
required, it is denied.
138. The allegations of Paragraph 138 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
139. The allegations of Paragraph 139 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “Third Counterclaim”
“Untimely Paid Wages in Violation of NYLL §191”
140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
141. Paragraph 141 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
137 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
required, it is denied.
142. Paragraph 142 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Page 8 of 17
8 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
142 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
required, it is denied.
143. Paragraph 143 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
143 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
required, it is denied.
144. Paragraph 144 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
144 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
required, it is denied.
145. Paragraph 145 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
146. The allegations of Paragraph 146 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
147. To the extent that Paragraph 145 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims Plaintiff responds
to the particular allegations of Paragraph 147 as follows:
a. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “a” of Defendant Lum’s
Counterclaims.
Page 9 of 17
9 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
b. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “b” of Defendant Lum’s
Counterclaims.
c. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “c” of Defendant Lum’s
Counterclaims.
d. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “d” of Defendant Lum’s
Counterclaims.
e. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “e” of Defendant Lum’s
Counterclaims.
148. Paragraph 148 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
149. Paragraph 149 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
144 are admitted.
150. Paragraph 150 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
150 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
required, it is denied.
Page 10 of 17
10 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
151. The allegations of Paragraph 151 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “Fourth Counterclaim”
“Breach of Contract”
152. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
153. Paragraph 153 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of the Employment Agreement, a written document that speaks for itself.
Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of the Employment Agreement. The
remaining allegations of Paragraph 153 state legal conclusions to which no answer is
required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
154. Paragraph 154 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of the Employment Agreement, a written document that speaks for itself.
Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of the Employment Agreement. The
remaining allegations of Paragraph 154 state legal conclusions to which no answer is
required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied.
155. The allegations of Paragraph 155 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “First Counterclaim”
“Violations of NYLL § 195’s Wage Notice and Paystub Requirements”
156. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
157. Paragraph 157 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL.
Page 11 of 17
11 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
158. Paragraph 158 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
158 are denied.
159. Paragraph 159 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph
159 are denied.
160. Paragraph 160 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content
and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies
Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL.
161. The allegations of Paragraph 161 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
162. The allegations of Paragraph 162 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied.
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff asserts the following affirmative and other defenses without assuming any
burden of production or proof that it would not otherwise have.
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. The Verified Answer and Counterclaim fails to state a cause of action upon which
relief can be granted.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Page 12 of 17
12 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by documentary evidence.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, because
Answering Defendants failed to specifically allege and/or particularize the representations
allegedly wrongful prosecution.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred because Answering Defendants
failed to plead its claims with the particularity as required by CPLR R. 3016(b).
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because
Answering Defendants suffered no damages.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because at
all times mentioned in the Verified Answer and Counterclaim and with respect to all matters
contained therein, Plaintiff acted in good faith and exercised reasonable care and diligence and did
not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of any alleged misconduct,
untruth, omission or any other action in the Verified Answer and Counterclaim that allegedly gives
rise to liability.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Page 13 of 17
13 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
11. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because at
all relevant times, Answering Defendants did not rely on any material misrepresentation or
omissions.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because
Plaintiff did not breach any agreement between the Parties.
Page 14 of 17
14 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because
Plaintiff did not directly or indirectly cause any damages and the Answering Defendants did not
suffer any loss.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Answering Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is unauthorized, contrary, to
public policy, and/or prohibited by applicable law.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because
any recovery by Answering Defendants would constitute unjust enrichment.
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because
Answering Defendants failed to mitigate damages.
AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the right
of Plaintiff to set-off against any such damages.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because
Plaintiff, at all times, acted or omitted to act in good faith and reasonably believed that such act or
omission was in the best interest of Answering Defendants.
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
19. By designating the aforementioned affirmative defenses, Plaintiff does not in any
way waive or limit any defenses that are or may be raised by their denials and averments. These
Page 15 of 17
15 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
defenses are pled in the alternative and are raised to preserve the rights of Plaintiff to assert such
defenses and are without prejudice to their ability to raise other and further defenses. Plaintiff
expressly reserves all rights to re-evaluate its defenses and/or assert additional defenses upon
discovery and review of additional documents and information, upon the development of other
pertinent facts, and during pretrial proceedings in this action.
Dated: December 5, 2023
New York, NY
Respectfully submitted,
PITCOFF LAW GROUP, PC
/s/ Jennifer L. Harrington
Jennifer L. Harrington, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (646) 580-3204
jennifer@pitcofflawgroup.com
Page 16 of 17
16 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
VERIFICATION
Dr. Yong Kang He, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Member/Manager and
Owner of the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing REPLY TO
DEFENDANT LUM’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and know
the contents thereof. The same are true to my knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be
alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
________________________________ December 5, 2023
By: Dr. Yong Kang He, Member/Manager and Owner,
YONG KANG MEDICAL PLLC
STATE OF ____________________
COUNTY OF ____________________
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 5th day of December, 2023 by Yong Kang He,
who produced ___________________ as identification.
(NOTARY SEAL)
Page 17 of 17
17 of 17
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------x YONG KANG MEDICAL PLLC, Index No: 516705/2023 Plaintiff, vs. REPLY TO DEFENDANT LUM’S TSZHODERRICK LUM, WELLNESS FAMILY COUNTERCLAIMS AND HEALTH NP, P.C., LI HONG YE, and DR. LI AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PEDIATRIC P.C., Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff Yong Kang Medical PLLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, Pitcoff Law Group, PC, answers the separately numbered paragraphs in the Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims (Doc. No. 18) (“Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims”) of Defendants Tszhoderrick Lum and Wellness Family Health NP, P.C. (“Answering Defendants”) in this action and asserts affirmative and other defenses as follows: REPLY TO DEFENSES 74. Paragraph 74 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “First Defense” “Failure to State a Claim” 75. Paragraph 75 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Page 1 of 17 1 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “Second Defense” “Good Faith” 76. It is denied that Answering Defendants always acted in good faith. It also is denied that there was unethical conduct on the part of Plaintiff. It is further denied that the Answering Defendants did not take confidential information from Plaintiff. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 76 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “Third Defense” “Waiver, Estoppel, Laches, and Unclean Hands” 77. The allegations of Paragraph 77 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 78. The allegations of Paragraph 78 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 79. It is admitted that Defendant Lum lost his board certification. It is further admitted that Defendant Lum was audited and removed from the Chinese American Independent Practice Association (CAIPA). Plaintiff denies the accusations that he is somehow in control of both Defendant Lum’s board certification and Defendant Lum’s position in CAIPA. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 79 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 80. The allegations of Paragraph 80 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 81. Paragraph 81 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims alleges Defendant Lum’s mindset and/or thought process, which Plaintiff would have no way of knowing or proving, so no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 82. The allegations of Paragraph 82 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 83. It is admitted that Defendant Lum began his own, competing practice while working for Plaintiff. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 83 of Defendant Lum’s Page 2 of 17 2 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 Counterclaims allege Defendant Lum’s mindset and/or thought process, which Plaintiff would have no way of knowing or proving, so no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 84. The allegations of Paragraph 84 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 85. The allegations of Paragraph 85 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 86. The allegations of Paragraph 86 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 87. The allegations of Paragraph 87 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 88. The allegations of Paragraph 88 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 89. The allegations of Paragraph 89 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 90. The allegations of Paragraph 90 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 91. The allegations of Paragraph 91 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 92. It is admitted that Plaintiff enforced the Employment Agreement’s non-compete terms and terminated Defendant Lum for violating said terms. 93. Paragraph 93 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “Fourth Defense” “Anticipatory Breach” 94. It is admitted that Plaintiff would, and in fact did, adhere to required legal and ethical standards. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 93 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 95. The allegations of Paragraph 95 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 96. It is admitted that Defendant Lum was and is bound by strict ethical and legal standards, the breach of which could have professional and legal repercussions on Defendant Page 3 of 17 3 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 Lum. It is denied that Plaintiff had unlawful or unethical practices, or that Plaintiff posed any threats to Defendant Lum’s ethical or legal standards. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 93 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 97. The allegations of Paragraph 97 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “Fifth Defense” “Violations of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing” 98. Paragraph 98 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “Sixth Defense” “Modification” 99. It is admitted that Lum’s conduct constituted a breach of the Employment Agreement. It is generally denied that there was any modification of the Employment Agreement; and it is specifically denied that any potential modification met the requirements of Section 6.3 of the Employment Agreement (“Waiver”), which requires, “The waiver by any party to a breach of any provision of the Agreement must be in writing and signed by such party to be effective, and shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the Agreement.” Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “Seventh Defense” “Enforcement of the Employment Agreement’s Anti-Competitive Provisions Would Offend Public Policy” 100. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff “is and was engaged in frequent ethical violations.” The remaining allegations of Paragraph 100 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Page 4 of 17 4 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 101. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has or had “numerous ethical violations/lapses.” The remaining allegations of Paragraph 100 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims state a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Lum’s “Eighth Defense” “The Employment Agreement’s Draconian “Liquidated Damages” Provision is an Unenforceable Penalty 102. The allegations of Paragraph 102 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 103. Paragraph 103 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT LUM’S VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “First Counterclaim” “Unpaid Overtime in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207” 104. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 105. Paragraph 105 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 106. The allegations of Paragraph 106 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 107. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 108. Paragraph 108 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 109. The allegations of Paragraph 109 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 110. The allegations of Paragraph 110 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Page 5 of 17 5 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 111. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 112. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 113. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 114. The allegations of Paragraph 107 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 115. Paragraph 115 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Re: “Interstate Commerce” 116. Paragraph 116 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 117. The allegations of Paragraph 117 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 118. Paragraph 118 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 119. The allegations of Paragraph 119 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 120. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted in Paragraph 120 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims. 121. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted in Paragraph 121 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims. 122. Paragraph 122 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 123. Paragraph 123 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 124. Paragraph 124 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Page 6 of 17 6 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 125. The allegations of Paragraph 125 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Plaintiff’s Denial – Re: “Yong Kang’s Wage and Hour Violations Were Willful” 126. The allegations of Paragraph 126 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 127. The allegations of Paragraph 127 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 128. The allegations of Paragraph 128 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 129. The allegations of Paragraph 129 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “Second Counterclaim” “Unpaid Overtime in Violation of § 142-2.2 of Title 12 of New York’s Codes, Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 663(1), 652(1) and 190, et seq.” 130. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 131. Paragraph 131 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 131. 132. Paragraph 132 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 132. 133. The allegations of Paragraph 133 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are admitted. 134. Paragraph 134 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 134. Page 7 of 17 7 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 135. Paragraph 135 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 136. Paragraph 136 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL, and further denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 136. 137. Paragraph 137 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 137 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 138. The allegations of Paragraph 138 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 139. The allegations of Paragraph 139 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “Third Counterclaim” “Untimely Paid Wages in Violation of NYLL §191” 140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 141. Paragraph 141 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 137 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 142. Paragraph 142 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Page 8 of 17 8 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 142 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 143. Paragraph 143 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 143 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 144. Paragraph 144 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 144 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 145. Paragraph 145 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 146. The allegations of Paragraph 146 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 147. To the extent that Paragraph 145 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims Plaintiff responds to the particular allegations of Paragraph 147 as follows: a. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “a” of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims. Page 9 of 17 9 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 b. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “b” of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims. c. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “c” of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims. d. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “d” of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims. e. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted in Paragraph 147, Subparagraph “e” of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims. 148. Paragraph 148 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 149. Paragraph 149 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 144 are admitted. 150. Paragraph 150 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 150 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. Page 10 of 17 10 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 151. The allegations of Paragraph 151 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “Fourth Counterclaim” “Breach of Contract” 152. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 153. Paragraph 153 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of the Employment Agreement, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of the Employment Agreement. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 153 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 154. Paragraph 154 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of the Employment Agreement, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of the Employment Agreement. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 154 state legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, it is denied. 155. The allegations of Paragraph 155 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. Plaintiff’s Denial of Defendant Lum’s “First Counterclaim” “Violations of NYLL § 195’s Wage Notice and Paystub Requirements” 156. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 157. Paragraph 157 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. Page 11 of 17 11 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 158. Paragraph 158 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 158 are denied. 159. Paragraph 159 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 159 are denied. 160. Paragraph 160 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims purports to characterize the content and nature of NYLL, a written document that speaks for itself. Plaintiff denies Defendant Lum’s characterization of NYLL. 161. The allegations of Paragraph 161 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. 162. The allegations of Paragraph 162 of Defendant Lum’s Counterclaims are denied. AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff asserts the following affirmative and other defenses without assuming any burden of production or proof that it would not otherwise have. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. The Verified Answer and Counterclaim fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Page 12 of 17 12 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred by documentary evidence. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, because Answering Defendants failed to specifically allege and/or particularize the representations allegedly wrongful prosecution. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Answering Defendants’ counterclaims are barred because Answering Defendants failed to plead its claims with the particularity as required by CPLR R. 3016(b). AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because Answering Defendants suffered no damages. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because at all times mentioned in the Verified Answer and Counterclaim and with respect to all matters contained therein, Plaintiff acted in good faith and exercised reasonable care and diligence and did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of any alleged misconduct, untruth, omission or any other action in the Verified Answer and Counterclaim that allegedly gives rise to liability. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Page 13 of 17 13 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 11. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because at all relevant times, Answering Defendants did not rely on any material misrepresentation or omissions. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff did not breach any agreement between the Parties. Page 14 of 17 14 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff did not directly or indirectly cause any damages and the Answering Defendants did not suffer any loss. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Answering Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is unauthorized, contrary, to public policy, and/or prohibited by applicable law. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because any recovery by Answering Defendants would constitute unjust enrichment. AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because Answering Defendants failed to mitigate damages. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the right of Plaintiff to set-off against any such damages. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Answering Defendants’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff, at all times, acted or omitted to act in good faith and reasonably believed that such act or omission was in the best interest of Answering Defendants. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 19. By designating the aforementioned affirmative defenses, Plaintiff does not in any way waive or limit any defenses that are or may be raised by their denials and averments. These Page 15 of 17 15 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 defenses are pled in the alternative and are raised to preserve the rights of Plaintiff to assert such defenses and are without prejudice to their ability to raise other and further defenses. Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights to re-evaluate its defenses and/or assert additional defenses upon discovery and review of additional documents and information, upon the development of other pertinent facts, and during pretrial proceedings in this action. Dated: December 5, 2023 New York, NY Respectfully submitted, PITCOFF LAW GROUP, PC /s/ Jennifer L. Harrington Jennifer L. Harrington, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (646) 580-3204 jennifer@pitcofflawgroup.com Page 16 of 17 16 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 02:48 PM INDEX NO. 516705/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 VERIFICATION Dr. Yong Kang He, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Member/Manager and Owner of the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing REPLY TO DEFENDANT LUM’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and know the contents thereof. The same are true to my knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. ________________________________ December 5, 2023 By: Dr. Yong Kang He, Member/Manager and Owner, YONG KANG MEDICAL PLLC STATE OF ____________________ COUNTY OF ____________________ The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 5th day of December, 2023 by Yong Kang He, who produced ___________________ as identification. (NOTARY SEAL) Page 17 of 17 17 of 17