Legal Document: Joseph Itara, Tabetha Itara v. Masaryk Towers Corporation D/B/A Masaryk Towers Management, Metro Management & Development Inc., A/K/A Metro Management Devel., Inc.

On March 19, 2020 a ANSWER - VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT was filed involving a dispute between Joseph Itara, Tabetha Itara, and Masaryk Towers Corporation D B A Masaryk Towers Management, Metro Management & Development Inc., A K A Metro Management Devel., Inc., for Torts - Other (Premises Liability) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
JOSEPH ITARA and TABETHA ITARA, Index No. 152948/2020

Plaintiffs, VERIFIED ANSWER
TO AMENDED
-against - VERIFIED COMPLAINT

MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION d/b/a
MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT,
METRO MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT INC.
a/k/a METRO MANAGEMENT DEVEL., INC.,

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION i/s/h/a Third-Party Index No.:
MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION d/b/a 595639/2021
MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

CENTENNIAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Defendants, MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION i/s/h/a MASARYK TOWERS

CORPORATION d/b/a MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT (hereinafter “MASARYK”)

and METRO MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT INC. a/k/a METRO MANAGEMENT

DEVEL., INC., (hereinafter “METRO”) by their attorneys Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden,

LLP, as and for their Verified Answer to Amended Verified Complaint dated October 5, 2021,

allege upon information and belief as follows:

1 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF JOSEPH ITARA

1. Admit each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs “1” and “2” of the

Amended Verified Complaint.

2. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5” and “6” of the

Amended Verified Complaint.

3. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “7” of the Amended Verified

Complaint, except admit that, on August 13, 2019, through the present, Defendant MASARYK

had a place of business located at 65 Columbia Street, New York, New York 10002.

4. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “8” of the Amended Verified

Complaint, except admits that, on August 13, 2019, through the present, Defendant METRO had

a place of business located within the Masaryk Towers complex in Manhattan, New York 10002.

5. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “9” of the Amended Verified

Complaint, except admits that, on August 13, 2019, through the present, Defendant METRO has

a place of business located at 61 Columbia Street, New York, NY.

6. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “10” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, except admits that currently, Defendant METRO has a place of business

located at 1981 Marcus Avenue, Suite C-131, Lake Success, NY 11042.

7. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “11” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, except admits that, on August 13, 2019, through the present, Defendant

MASARYK has a place of business located at 77 Columbia Street, New York, NY 11042.

8. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “12” of the Amended

Verified Complaint.

2 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

9. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “13” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, except admits that, on August 13, 2019, through the present, Defendant

MASARYK was the owner of the premises located at 65 Columbia Street, New York, NY 10002.

10. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “14” of the Amended

Verified Complaint.

11. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “15” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, except admits that, on August 13, 2019, through the present, 65 Columbia

Street, New York, NY 10002 is a co-op apartment building.

12. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “16” of the Amended

Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.

13. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “17” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, except admits that, on August 13, 2019, 65 Columbia Street, New York, New

York 10002 was and still is a co-op apartment building managed by the defendant METRO.

14. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraphs “18”, “19” and “20” of the Amended Verified Complaint, and

respectfully refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.

15. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “21” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, and respectfully refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.

16. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “22” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, except admits that, on August 13, 2019, and currently, Defendant METRO

managed the aforesaid premises.

17. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “23” of the Amended

Verified Complaint.

3 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

18. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “24” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, except admits that, Defendant METRO on August 13, 2019, and currently,

managed the building at 65 Columbia Street, New York, NY 10002 pursuant to a written

agreement.

19. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraphs “25”, “26” and “27” of the Amended Verified Complaint, and

respectfully refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.

20. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs “28”, “29” and “30” of the

Amended Verified Complaint, and respectfully refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.

21. Admit each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “31” of the Amended

Verified Complaint.

22. Deny each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “32”, “33”, “34”, “35” and

“36” of the Amended Verified Complaint.

23. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs “37”, “38”, “39”, “40” and

“41” of the Amended Verified Complaint, and respectfully refers all questions of law to this

Honorable Court.

24. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “42” of the Amended Verified Complaint, and respectfully

refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.

25. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “43” of the Amended

Verified Complaint.

4 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

AS AND FOR AN ANSWER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS TABETHA ITARA

26. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph “44” of the Amended

Verified Complaint, the answering Defendants repeat and reallege each and every denial contained

in paragraphs “1” through “43” thereof, as if fully set forth at length herein.

27. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “45” of the Amended Verified Complaint, and respectfully

refers all questions of law to this Honorable Court.

28. Deny each and every allegation set forth in paragraph “46” of the Amended

Verified Complaint.

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29. If the plaintiffs have sustained any damages as alleged, which damages are

expressly denied, then all such damages will have been caused or brought about in whole or in part

by the affirmative wrongdoing, fault, negligence and failure of due care (hereinafter “culpable

conduct”) of the plaintiffs and any recovery should be thereby diminished in the proportion which

the plaintiffs’ culpable conduct bears to the conduct which caused the alleged damages, pursuant

to CPLR Rule 1411.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. Upon information and belief, any past or future costs or expenses incurred or to be

incurred by the plaintiffs for medical care, dental care, custodial care, or rehabilitative service, loss

of earnings or other economic loss has been, or will, with reasonable certainty be replaced or

indemnified in whole or in part from a collateral source, as defined in Section 4545 of the New

York Civil Practice Laws & Rules. If any damages are recoverable against the undersigned

5 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

Defendants, the amount of such damages shall be diminished by the amount of the funds which

the plaintiffs have received or shall receive from such collateral sources.

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

31. If it should be found after trial that the Defendants are liable to the plaintiffs in the

amount of 50% or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable, the liability of Defendants

to the plaintiffs for non-economic loss shall not exceed the Defendants’ equitable share determined

in accordance with the relative culpability of each person causing or contributing to the total

liability for non-economic loss in accordance with Article 16 of the CPLR.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

32. The injuries and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs were not caused by any

negligence, carelessness, culpable conduct or breach of duty on the part of the Defendants, their

servants, agents or employees, but were caused by reason of the carelessness, negligence culpable

conduct and/or breach of duty of some third parties, their servants, agents or employees over whom

the Defendants had no control.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

33. The Defendants had no prior notice of the alleged dangerous condition, either actual

or constructive.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. The Defendants did not cause or create any alleged dangerous condition.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

35. The action is barred by plaintiffs’ implied assumption of the risk for the activity

plaintiffs was doing at the time of the occurrence in that said risks and danger were open, obvious

and apparent and known to the plaintiffs.

6 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

36. That the Amended Verified Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

37. The liability of the Defendants, if any, to the plaintiffs for non-economic loss is

limited to their equitable share, determined in accordance with the relative culpability of all

persons or entities contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss, including named parties

and others over whom plaintiffs could have obtained personal jurisdiction with due diligence.

AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. The action is barred by plaintiffs’ express assumption of the risk for the activity

plaintiffs was doing at the time of the occurrence.

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages pursuant to Law, Statute and Agreement

and therefore, have sustained no damages.

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

40. All claims raised and causes of action asserted in the Verified Complaint against

the Answering Defendants are barred by laches or waiver, and plaintiffs is equitably estopped from

asserting such claims or causes of action against the Defendants.

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

41. The Defendants allege that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were solely and

proximately caused by the intervening negligence, carelessness, gross negligence, willfulness,

wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct of an independent third party.

7 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

42. If Plaintiffs sustained any injury or incurred any loss or damages as alleged in the

Verified Complaint, the same were caused in whole or in part by actions or omissions of another

or others over whom the Defendants are not responsible, and whose conduct the Defendants had

no duty or reason to anticipate or control.

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

43. The Defendants allege that plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were proximately caused by

an unforeseeable, unanticipated, independent, intervening and/or superseding event beyond the

control, and unrelated to any conduct of the Defendants.

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

44. The Defendants allege that, to the extent that plaintiffs’ injuries were caused

directly, solely, and proximately by allergies, sensitivities, medical conditions and idiosyncrasies

peculiar to plaintiffs and not found in the general public, they are unknown, unknowable or not

reasonably foreseeable to Defendants.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants, MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION i/s/h/a

MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION d/b/a MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT and

METRO MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT INC. a/k/a METRO MANAGEMENT DEVEL.,

INC., demand judgment:

(A) Dismissing the Amended Verified Complaint in its entirety;

(B) Awarding Defendants the costs and disbursements of this action; and

8 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

Dated: Woodbury, New York
November 5, 2021
MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS
& SEIDEN, LLP

____________________________________
Susan J. Stromberg
MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS
& SEIDEN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION
i/s/h/a MASARYK TOWERS
CORPORATION d/b/a MASARYK
TOWERS MANAGEMENT and METRO
MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT
INC. a/k/a METRO MANAGEMENT
DEVEL., INC.,
1000 Woodbury Road, Suite 402
Woodbury, New York 11797
(516) 712-4000
File No.: 667-19159
stromberg@milbermakris.com

TO: Brett J. Nomberg, Esq.
BRAND NOMBERG &
ROSENBAUM, LLP
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JOSEPH ITARA and TABETHA ITARA
622 3RD Avenue, 7TH Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 808-0448
bnomberg@bbnrlaw.com

Alexandra [Sasha] L. Robins, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK LLP
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
CENTENNIAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC.
245 Main Street, Suite 330
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 470-0001 x 31
sasha.robins@kdvlaw.com

9 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

ATTORNEY VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF NASSAU )

SUSAN J. STROMBERG, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a Partner with

the law firm of MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS & SEIDEN, LLP, counsel for Defendants,

MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION i/s/h/a MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION d/b/a

MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT and METRO MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT

INC. a/k/a METRO MANAGEMENT DEVEL., INC., in the within action, and makes this

verification pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3). Defendants are not within the county where deponent

has her office. Deponent has read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMENDED

VERIFIED COMPLAINT and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true on the basis of

information and belief, based upon books and records in the possession of deponent and

conversations with Defendants.

Dated: Woodbury, New York
November 5, 2021
____________________________
SUSAN J. STROMBERG

10 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SUSAN J. STROMBERG, the attorney of record for Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party

Plaintiff MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION i/s/h/a MASARYK TOWERS

CORPORATION d/b/a MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT, hereby certifies that on the

date shown below, one copy of the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMENDED

VERIFIED COMPLAINT was caused to be served by ECF upon:

Brett J. Nomberg, Esq. Sasha Robins, Esq.
BRAND NOMBERG KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK LLP
& ROSENBAUM, LLP Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
Attorney for Plaintiffs CENTENNIAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC.
JOSEPH ITARA and TABETHA ITARA 245 Main Street, Suite 880
622 3RD Avenue, 7TH Floor White Plains, New York 10601
New York, New York 10017 (914) 470-0001 x31
(212) 808-0448 srobins@kdvlaw.com
bnomberg@bbnrlaw.com

Dated: Woodbury, New York
November 5, 2021

____________________________________
SUSAN J. STROMBERG

11 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 09:45 AM INDEX NO. 152948/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021

__________________________________________________________________________ __
SUPREME COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
JOSEPH ITARA and TABETHA ITARA, Index No. 152948/2020

Plaintiffs,

-against -

MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION d/b/a
MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT,

Defendant.

AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION.
______________ _____________________________________________________________________________________

VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________
MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS & SEIDEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Attorneys for Defendant, MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION i/s/h/a
MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION d/b/a MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
1000 Woodbury Road, Suite 402
Woodbury, NY 11797
(516) 712-4000
MMPS File No.: 532-19159
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
To Signature (Rule 130-1.1-a)

.……………………………………………………….
Print name beneath
Attorney(s) for
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.

Dated,
………………………………………………………..
Attorney(s) for
Please take notice
NOTICE OF ENTRY
that the within is a (certified) true copy of a
duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the
HON. one of the judges of the within named court, at
Dated, Yours, etc.
MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS & SEIDEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Attorneys for Defendant
To 1000 Woodbury Road, Suite 402
Woodbury, New York 11797

12 of 12

Case Info

Judge

Eric Schumacher Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 05, 2021

Case Filing Date

March 19, 2020

County

Parties

Joseph Itara Plaintiff
MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION d/b/a MASARYK TOWERS MANAGEMENT Defendant
METRO MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT INC., a/k/a METRO MANAGEMENT DEVEL., INC. Defendant
NOMBERG, BRETT JARROD Attorney for the Plaintiff
PENTOLA, MICHAEL J Attorney for the Defendant
STROMBERG, SUSAN J. Attorney for the Defendant
Tabetha Itara Plaintiff
BRUCE YOUNG Attorneys for Defendants
SUSAN MILLER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALEXANDRA ROBINS Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Joseph Itara, Tabetha Itara v. Masaryk Towers Corporation D/B/A Masaryk Towers Management, Metro Management & Development Inc., A/K/A Metro Management Devel., Inc.

Preview

Case Info

Parties