Document for Eugene N. Cook Jr., Karyn Cook v. Adsco Manufacturing Corp., Individually and as Successor to Farrar and Trefts, Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Alray Construction Corp., Individually and as Successor to R.E. Hebert and Company, Inc., Armstrong International, Inc., Armstrong Pumps Inc., Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc. d/b/a Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Blackmer Pump, 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, Clark Reliance Corporation, Individually and as Successor to Jerguson, Cleaver-Brooks Company f/k/a Aqua-Chem, Inc., Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Dean Pump Division, Dezurik, Inc., E. Keeler Company, Eaton Electrical Inc. f/k/a Cutler Hammer, Inc., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan, Elmer W. Davis, Inc., Flowserve Corporation, Individually, and as successor by merger to Durco International, previously known as the Duriron 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, Genuine Parts Company, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell Corporation, Hansen Permanente Cement, Inc., Honeywell International, Inc., Individually and f/k/a Alliedsignal, Inc., and as Successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corp., I.T.T. Industries, Inc. Individually and as successor to Bell & Gossett, Insulation Distributors, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Keeler/Dorr-Oliver Boiler Company, Laco Sales Inc., Individually and as Successor to Laco Applicators and Laco Roofing and Asbestos Company, Inc., Ladish Co., Inc., Mader Capital, Inc., Individually and as successor in interest to The Mader Corporation and Rochester Acoustical, Mader Construction Corporation, Individually and as successor to Rochester Acoustical, Mader Corporation, Individually and as successor to Rochester Acoustical, Mader Plastering Corp., Mader Service, Individually and as successor to Rochester Acoustical, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Paramount Global, f/k/a ViacomCBS Inc., f/k/a 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, Pfaudler, Inc., Pneumo Abex Corporation, Pneumo-Abex Llc, Individually and as Successor to Abex Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, R.E. Hebert And Company, Inc., Redco Corp. f/k/a Crane Co., Rochester Industrial Insulations Inc., Roper Industries, Inc. a Florida Corporation, Spence Engineering Company, Inc., Spirax Sarco, Inc., Taco, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Velan Valve Corp., Warren Pumps Llc, Individually and as Successor to The Quimby Pump Company, William Powell Company (The), William Summerhays' Sons Corporation, Zurn Industries, Inc. a/k/a and Successor-in-Interest to Erie City Iron Works

On December 19, 2023 a ANSWER - Cleaver Brooks Inc. was filed involving a dispute between Eugene N. Cook Jr., Karyn Cook, and Adsco Manufacturing Corp., Individually And As Successor To Farrar And Trefts, Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, As Successor By Merger To Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Alray Construction Corp., Individually And As Successor To R.E. Hebert And Company, Inc., Armstrong International, Inc., Armstrong Pumps Inc., Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc. D B A Weir Valves & Controls Usa Inc., Blackmer Pump, 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, Clark Reliance Corporation, Individually And As Successor To Jerguson, Cleaver-Brooks Company F K A Aqua-Chem, Inc., Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Dean Pump Division, Dezurik, Inc., Eaton Electrical Inc. F K A Cutler Hammer, Inc., E. Keeler Company, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Individually And As Successor To Tappan And Copes-Vulcan, Elmer W. Davis, Inc., Flowserve Corporation, Individually, And As Successor By Merger To Durco International, Previously Known As The Duriron 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, Genuine Parts Company, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell Corporation, Hansen Permanente Cement, Inc., Honeywell International, Inc., Individually And F K A Alliedsignal, Inc., And As Successor-In-Interest To The Bendix Corp., Insulation Distributors, Inc., I.T.T. Industries, Inc. Individually And As Successor To Bell & Gossett, Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Keeler Dorr-Oliver Boiler Company, Laco Sales Inc., Individually And As Successor To Laco Applicators And Laco Roofing And Asbestos Company, Inc., Ladish Co., Inc., Mader Capital, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To The Mader Corporation And Rochester Acoustical, Mader Construction Corporation, Individually And As Successor To Rochester Acoustical, Mader Corporation, Individually And As Successor To Rochester Acoustical, Mader Plastering Corp., Mader Service, Individually And As Successor To Rochester Acoustical, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Paramount Global, F K A Viacomcbs Inc., F K A 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, Pfaudler, Inc., Pneumo Abex Corporation, Pneumo-Abex Llc, Individually And As Successor To Abex Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Redco Corp. F K A Crane Co., R.E. Hebert And Company, Inc., Rochester Industrial Insulations Inc., Roper Industries, Inc. A Florida Corporation, Spence Engineering Company, Inc., Spirax Sarco, Inc., Taco, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Velan Valve Corp., Warren Pumps Llc, Individually And As Successor To The Quimby Pump Company, William Powell Company, William Summerhays' Sons Corporation, Zurn Industries, Inc. A K A And Successor-In-Interest To Erie City Iron Works, for Torts - Asbestos in the District Court of Monroe County.

Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM INDEX NO. E2023015237
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.

Receipt # 3721741

Book Page CIVIL

Return To: No. Pages: 20
BETH LYNN HUGHES
101 PARK AVE Instrument: ANSWER
NEW YORK, NY 10178
Control #: 202401291469
Index #: E2023015237

Date: 01/29/2024

COOK, EUGENE N. JR. Time: 4:30:26 PM
COOK, KARYN

ADSCO MANUFACTURING CORP.,
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
ALRAY CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ARMSTRONG PUMPS INC.

Total Fees Paid: $0.00

Employee:

State of New York

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE
WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.

JAMIE ROMEO

MONROE COUNTY CLERK

1 of 20
202401291469 Index #
INDEX : E2023015237
NO. E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF MONROE
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
EUGENE N. COOK, JR. and KARYN COOK, Index No. E2023015237

Plaintiffs,

vs.
VERIFIED ANSWER
ADSCO MANUFACTURING CORP., Individually and as
Successor to Farrar and Trefts, et al.,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF
DEFENDANT CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.

Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., improperly served as “Cleaver-Brooks Company f/k/a

Aqua-Chem, Inc.” (“Cleaver-Brooks” or “Defendant”), as its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the

“Complaint”) and Affirmative Defenses, states as follows:

1–4. Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 4.

5. To the extent that Paragraph 5 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5. To the extent that Paragraph 5

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities. Further, the allegation that Cleaver-Brooks has conducted and/or transacted

business in New York is a question of law to be adjudicated by this Court.

6–14. Paragraphs 6 through 14 make no allegation against Cleaver-Brooks and

therefore Cleaver-Brooks makes no answer thereto.

2 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

15. To the extent that Paragraph 15 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15. To the extent that Paragraph 15

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those

entities. Further, the allegation that Cleaver-Brooks has conducted and/or transacted business in

New York is a question of law to be adjudicated by this Court.

16–63. Paragraphs 16 through 63 make no allegation against Cleaver-Brooks and

therefore Cleaver-Brooks makes no answer thereto.

64. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 64 are directed against Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 64. To the extent that

Paragraph 64 contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is

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

forth against those entities. Answering further, the allegation that Cleaver-Brooks has conducted

and/or transacted business in New York is a question of law to be adjudicated by this Court.

65–71. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraphs 65 through 71 are directed against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 65 through 71. To

the extent that Paragraphs 65 through 71 contain allegations against entities other than Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth against those entities.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

72. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

71 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

-2-

3 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

73–80. To the extent that Paragraphs 73 through 80 contain allegations against Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 73 through 80. To the extent

that Paragraphs 73 through 80 contain allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations set forth against those entities.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

81. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

80 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

82–85. To the extent that Paragraphs 82 through 85 contain allegations against Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 82 through 85. To the extent

that Paragraphs 82 through 85 contain allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations set forth against those entities.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

86. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

85 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

87–95. To the extent that Paragraphs 87 through 95 contain allegations against Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 87 through 95. To the extent

that Paragraphs 87 through 95 contain allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations set forth against those entities.

-3-

4 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

96. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

95 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

97–105. To the extent that Paragraphs 97 through 105 contain allegations against Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 97 through 105. To the

extent that Paragraphs 97 through 105 contain allegations against entities other than Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth against those entities.

106. To the extent that Paragraph 106 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 106. To the extent that Paragraph 106

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities. Answering further, the applications of the New York Labor Law (hereinafter

the “Labor Law”) and New York Industrial Code (hereinafter the “Industrial Code”) are questions

of law to be determined by this Court.

107–112. To the extent that Paragraphs 107 through 112 contain allegations against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 107 through 112.

To the extent that Paragraphs 107 through 112 contain allegations against entities other than

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those entities.

113. The allegations in Paragraph 113 are overly broad, vague, and lack foundation.

Therefore, to the extent that Paragraph 113 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-

Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 113. To the extent that Paragraph 113 contains

-4-

5 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those

entities.

114. The application of the Industrial Code 23 1.7 (g) and its predecessor is a question

of law to be determined by this Court; therefore Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

115. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

114 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

116–122. To the extent that Paragraphs 116 through 122 contain allegations against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 116 through 122.

To the extent that Paragraphs 116 through 122 contain allegations against entities other than

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those entities.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

123. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

122 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

124–132. To the extent that Paragraphs 124 through 132 contain allegations against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 124 through 132.

To the extent that Paragraphs 124 through 132 contain allegations against entities other than

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those entities.

133. Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations in Paragraph 133.

-5-

6 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

134–138. To the extent that Paragraphs 134 through 138 contain allegations against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 134 through 138.

To the extent that Paragraphs 134 through 138 contain allegations against entities other than

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those entities.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

139. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

138 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

140. Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 140.

141–148. To the extent that Paragraphs 141 through 148 contain allegations against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 141 through 148.

To the extent that Paragraphs 141 through 148 contain allegations against entities other than

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those entities.

149. To the extent that Paragraph 149 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 149. To the extent that Paragraph 149

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities. Further, the application of the Labor Law is a question of law to be

determined by this Court.

150. To the extent that Paragraph 150 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 150. To the extent that Paragraph 150

-6-

7 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities.

151. To the extent that Paragraph 151 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 151. To the extent that Paragraph 151

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities. Further, the application of the Labor Law is a question of law to be

determined by this Court.

152. To the extent that Paragraph 152 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 152. To the extent that Paragraph 152

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

153. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

152 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

154. To the extent that Paragraph 154 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 154. To the extent that Paragraph 154

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities.

-7-

8 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

155–167. To the extent that Paragraphs 155 and 167 contain allegations against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 155 and 167. To

the extent that Paragraphs 155 and 167 contain allegations against entities other than Cleaver-

Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations against those entities.

168. The substantive law governing this case is a question of law to be determined by

this Court; therefore Cleaver-Brooks makes no answer thereto.

AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

169. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

168 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

170–180. To the extent that Paragraphs 170 through 180 contain allegations against

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 170 through 180.

To the extent that Paragraphs 170 through 180 contain allegations against entities other than

Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations set forth against those entities. Answering further, the application

of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) is a question of law to be determined by

this Court; therefore Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations.

181. To the extent that Paragraph 181 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 181. To the extent that Paragraph 181

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities. Answering further, the application of Article 16 of the New York CPLR, the

-8-

9 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

New York Workers’ Compensation Law and the New York General Obligation Law are questions

of law to be determined by this Court; therefore Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations.

AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

182. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

181 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

183. To the extent that Paragraph 183 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 183. To the extent that Paragraph 183

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities.

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

184. Cleaver-Brooks repeats each and every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through

183 of this Answer herein with the same force and effect is as if fully set forth herein.

185. Cleaver-Brooks is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 185.

186. To the extent that Paragraph 186 contains allegations against Cleaver-Brooks,

Cleaver-Brooks denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 186. To the extent that Paragraph 186

contains allegations against entities other than Cleaver-Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth

against those entities.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to

compensatory and punitive damages and further requests that Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with

prejudice and any other relief this Honorable Court deems just.

-9-

10 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Defense

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

Second Defense

Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of repose or statute of limitations.

Third Defense

Any claim or cause of action Plaintiffs may have is barred, in whole or in part, by the

doctrines of laches, waiver, collateral estoppel, and/or res judicata.

Fourth Defense

Plaintiffs failed to plead the claims of fraud and conspiracy with proper specificity and, as

such, all claims premised on fraud and/or conspiracy must be dismissed.

Fifth Defense

The injuries and/or illnesses to Plaintiff, if any, are governed by the applicable Workers’

Compensation statutes and shall have constituted an industrial disability and Plaintiffs’ exclusive

remedy, if any, shall lie within the terms and ambit of said statute.

Sixth Defense

Plaintiffs’ claims and causes of action against Defendant are barred, in whole or in part,

because Defendant owed no legal duty to Plaintiff or, if it owed such a legal duty, it did not breach

such duty.

Seventh Defense

The injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by Plaintiffs’

free and voluntary acts of knowingly and voluntarily placing himself in a position of danger and

thus assuming the risks ordinary incident to such acts.

- 10 -

11 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

Eighth Defense

The injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any, arose in whole or part out of the risks,

hazards, and dangers incident to the occupation of Plaintiff all of which were open, obvious and

well known to Plaintiff, and the action is barred by Plaintiffs’ assumption of the risks thereof.

Ninth Defense

This action is barred, in whole or part, by the misuse, abuse, or substantial modification of

the product.

Tenth Defense

The negligent acts or omissions of Plaintiffs were the sole proximate cause or proximate

contributing cause of the injuries and damages of which Plaintiffs’ complains.

Eleventh Defense

Plaintiff contributed to his illness, either in whole or in part, by the use of other substances,

products, medications and drugs. To the extent that Plaintiff used any tobacco products, any

damages awarded should be reduced in whole or in part by the amount of his damages caused by

smoking.

Twelfth Defense

That the injuries and/or illnesses, if any, sustained by Plaintiff were caused or contributed

to by the fault, neglect, and want of care on the part of Plaintiff or of others for whose acts or

omissions or breach of legal duty Defendant is not liable.

Thirteenth Defense

Plaintiffs’ alleged damages were negligently caused in whole or in part by persons, firms,

corporations, or entities other than those parties before this Court and such negligence either bars

or comparatively reduces any possible recovery by Plaintiff.

- 11 -

12 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

Fourteenth Defense

Insofar as the Complaint alleges a cause of action accruing on or after September 1, 1975

to recover damages for personal injuries, the amount of damages recoverable thereon must be

diminished by reason of the culpable conduct attributable to Plaintiff, including contributory

negligence and assumption of risk, in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to

Plaintiff bear to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.

Fifteenth Defense

If Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the allegations set forth in the Complaint, then

those damages were the result of intervening or superseding acts or omissions of persons other

than the Defendant.

Sixteenth Defense

If Plaintiff suffered injuries as a proximate result of a condition of Defendant’s products,

any of Defendant’s products would have been supplied to an employer of Plaintiff. Such employer

was a knowledgeable and sophisticated user of said products, and thus Defendant had no further

legal duty to warn or instruct Plaintiff.

Seventeenth Defense

If any of the allegations of Plaintiff with respect to the defective condition of asbestos or

asbestos products are proven, then Plaintiff is barred from any recovery due to the fact that at all

relevant times there was no known substitute for asbestos or asbestos products.

Eighteenth Defense

The state of the medical and scientific knowledge at all relevant times was such that

Defendant neither knew nor could have known that its asbestos-containing products presented a

foreseeable risk of harm to any person in the normal and expected use of those products.

- 12 -

13 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

Nineteenth Defense

To the extent that Defendant conformed to the scientific knowledge and research data

available throughout the industry and scientific community, Defendant shall have fulfilled its

obligations, if any, herein, and Plaintiffs’ claims shall be barred, in whole or in part.

Twentieth Defense

If Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of exposure to any product manufactured by

Defendant, the degree of such damage attributable to Defendant’s product is negligible, and hence,

de minimis.

Twenty-First Defense

Defendant cannot be held jointly and severally liable for acts or omissions of other

defendants because the acts and omissions of those other defendants were separate and distinct

and the alleged harm caused by each defendant is divisible.

Twenty-Second Defense

Defendant is not liable for any damages alleged to have resulted from exposure to any of

its products which were manufactured pursuant to Government specifications.

Twenty-Third Defense

Insofar as Plaintiffs rely upon allegations of negligence, breaches of warranties, fraudulent

representations, and violations of obligations of strict product liability as against Defendant prior

to September 1, 1975, said causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of

action by reason of the failure to allege the freedom of Plaintiffs from contributory negligence or

fault; and that if Plaintiffs sustained the injuries, losses, and other damages complained of in the

Complaint, they were caused and brought about, in whole or in part, by the negligence,

carelessness, assumption of risk, fault or other culpable conduct of Plaintiffs.

- 13 -

14 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

Twenty-Fourth Defense

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges rights assertedly derived from oral warranties or

undertakings on the part of Defendant, the Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of frauds.

Twenty-Fifth Defense

To the extent Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for express and/or implied warranties and

the alleged breaches thereof, such cause of action is legally insufficient by reason of the failure to

allege privity of contract and/or privity of warranties between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Twenty-Sixth Defense

To the extent that any breach of warranty is alleged, Plaintiff failed to give proper and

prompt notice of any such breach to Defendant.

Twenty-Seventh Defense

Plaintiff did not directly or indirectly purchase any asbestos-containing products or

materials from Defendant, and Plaintiff neither received nor relied upon any representation or

warranty allegedly made by Defendant.

Twenty-Eighth Defense

The action cannot proceed in the absence of all parties who should be named in accordance

with CPLR § 1001.

Twenty-Ninth Defense

The recoverable damages, if any, should be diminished under the collateral source rule set

forth in CPLR § 4545.

Thirtieth Defense

To the extent that Plaintiff may recover damages from Defendant, Defendant is entitled to

indemnification and/or contribution, in whole or in part, from each other defendants in this action.

- 14 -

15 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

Thirty-First Defense

If Defendant is ultimately found to be liable to Plaintiff, then, pursuant to CPLR Article

16, it shall only be liable for its equitable share of Plaintiffs’ recovery since any liability which

will be found against it will be insufficient to impose joint liability.

Thirty-Second Defense

Pursuant to CPLR Article 16, the liability, if any, of Defendant for non-economic loss shall

not exceed its equitable share of liability.

Thirty-Third Defense

To the extent Plaintiff seek to hold Defendant liable retroactively for conduct that was not

actionable at the time it occurred, Plaintiffs’ claims violate Defendant’s right to be free from ex

post facto laws and Defendant’s procedural and substantive due process rights under the

Constitution of the United States.

Thirty-Fourth Defense

Any claim for exemplary and/or punitive damages is barred because such damages are not

recoverable or warranted in this action.

Thirty-Fifth Defense

The imposition of punitive damages on the facts alleged in the Complaint is barred by the

United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York.

Thirty-Sixth Defense

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

Thirty-Seventh Defense

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred due to improper service of the Summons and Complaint on

Defendant.

- 15 -

16 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

Thirty-Eighth Defense

Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages cannot be sustained because it would violate

Defendant’s rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York,

including, but not limited to:

(a) Defendant’s procedural and substantive due process rights and equal protection

rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution and under cognate provisions of the New York Constitution;

(b) Defendant’s rights under the double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth Amendment of

the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the New York State

Constitution;

Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York.

Thirty-Ninth Defense

The law of New York and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the

Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitutions forbid punishing Defendant

simply for lawfully selling a legal product.

Fortieth Defense

Punitive damages are inappropriate to serve deterrence and punishment objectives because

those will be fully served by past and future liability for the same conduct at issue in this case.

Moreover, considerations of due process, comity, and state sovereignty bar any attempts to punish

Defendant, except to the extent the alleged conduct has had an impact in this State.

- 16 -

17 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

Forty-First Defense

All defenses which have been or will be asserted by other defendants and/or third-party

defendants in this action are adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at

length as defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. In addition, Defendant will rely upon any and all other

further defenses which become available or appear during discovery proceedings in this action and

hereby specifically reserves the right to amend its Answer for purposes of asserting further

additional defenses.

Dated: January 29, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.

By:
Beth L. Hughes
One of the Attorneys for Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.
Brady S. Edwards, Esq.
Beth L. Hughes, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Phone: (212) 309-6000
Fax: (212) 309-6001
beth.hughes@morganlewis.com

To: Belluck & Fox LLP
546 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Attorneys for Plaintiff

- 17 -

18 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

ATTORNEY VERIFICATION

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

BETH L. HUGHES, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the

State of New York, deposes and says that I am an attorney for Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., with an office

located at 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York, that I have read the foregoing Answer and

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on Behalf of Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and

know the contents thereof, that the same is true upon information and belief and I believe it to be

true, that the grounds of my belief are public records, records and documents currently in my

possession pertaining to this matter, and conversations with client’s agents, and that the reason

why this verification is made by me and not by said defendant is that said defendant is a foreign

corporation which has no offices located in New York County where I maintain an office.

The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of

perjury.

Dated: January 29, 2024
New York, New York

Beth L. Hughes

19 of 20
202401291469 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2023015237
E2023015237
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 02:08 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 29, 2024

Case Filing Date

December 19, 2023

County

Parties

ADSCO MANUFACTURING CORP., Individually and as Successor to Farrar and Trefts Defendant
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. Defendant
ALRAY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Individually and as Successor to R.E. Hebert and Company, Inc. Defendant
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant
ARMSTRONG PUMPS INC. Defendant
ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., INC. d/b/a Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc. Defendant
BELLUCK, JOSEPH WARREN Attorney for the Plaintiff
BLACKMER PUMP Defendant
BOTTICELLI, JASON ANTHONY Attorney for the Defendant
BURGASSER, JESSICA JEAN Attorney for the Defendant
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 Defendant
CHAMRA, CASEY THOMAS Attorney for the Defendant
CLARK RELIANCE CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor to Jerguson Defendant
CLEAVER-BROOKS COMPANY f/k/a Aqua-Chem, Inc. Defendant
COPES-VULCAN, INC. Defendant
COST, DAVID MICHAEL Attorney for the Defendant
DEAN, MEAGAN ELIZABETH Attorney for the Defendant
DEAN PUMP DIVISION Defendant
DEZURIK, INC. Defendant
DIMARCO, ERIK CHRISTOPHER Attorney for the Defendant
EATON ELECTRICAL INC. f/k/a Cutler Hammer, Inc. Defendant
E. KEELER COMPANY Defendant
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Individually and as Successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan Defendant
ELMER W. DAVIS, INC. Defendant
Eugene N. Cook JR. Plaintiff
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, Individually, and as successor by merger to Durco International, previously known as the Duriron Company Defendant
FLOWSERVE US, INC., solely as Successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, Inc. and Edward Vogt Valve Company Defendant
FMC CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor to Northern Pump Company, Coffin and Peerless Pump Company Defendant
GARDNER-DENVER, INC., Individually and as Successor to Nash Engineering Company Defendant
GARDNER-DENVER NASH, LLC, Individually and as Successor to Nash Engineering Company Defendant
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Defendant
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY Defendant
GOODEARL, DAVID JAMES Attorney for the Defendant
GOULDS PUMPS, INC. Defendant
GRINNELL CORPORATION Defendant
Hannan, Christopher Attorney for the Defendant
HANSEN PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC. Defendant
HERSH, RYAN DAVID Attorney for the Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Individually and f/k/a Alliedsignal, Inc., and as Successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corp. Defendant
HUGHES, BETH LYNN Attorney for the Defendant
HULL, RONALD GEORGE Attorney for the Defendant
INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC. Defendant
IRWIN, WILLIAM ROBERT Attorney for the Defendant
I.T.T. INDUSTRIES, INC. Individually and as successor to Bell & Gossett Defendant
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. Defendant
Karyn Cook Plaintiff
KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER COMPANY Defendant
LACO SALES INC., Individually and as Successor to Laco Applicators and Laco Roofing and Asbestos Company, Inc. Defendant
LADISH CO., INC. Defendant
LEONARDI, JENNIFER LYNN Attorney for the Defendant
MADER CAPITAL, INC., Individually and as successor in interest to The Mader Corporation and Rochester Acoustical Defendant
MADER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Individually and as successor to Rochester Acoustical Defendant
MADER CORPORATION, Individually and as successor to Rochester Acoustical Defendant
MADER PLASTERING CORP. Defendant
MADER SERVICE, Individually and as successor to Rochester Acoustical Defendant
MARIN, RICHARD P Attorney for the Defendant
MARLETTE, PETER STEWART Attorney for the Defendant
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant
NEMETH, MARK STEPHEN Attorney for the Defendant
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, f/k/a ViacomCBS Inc., f/k/a 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 Defendant
PEHUSH, TARA LYNNE Attorney for the Defendant
PFAUDLER, INC. Defendant
PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION Defendant
PNEUMO-ABEX LLC, Individually and as Successor to Abex Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Defendant
REDCO CORP. f/k/a Crane Co. Defendant
R.E. HEBERT AND COMPANY, INC. Defendant
ROCHESTER INDUSTRIAL INSULATIONS INC. Defendant
ROPER INDUSTRIES, INC. a Florida Corporation Defendant
SILVERMAN, MICHAEL DAVID Attorney for the Defendant
SNIDER, CAROL GUCK Attorney for the Defendant
SORENSEN, BRIAN JONATHAN Attorney for the Defendant
SPENCE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. Defendant
SPIRAX SARCO, INC. Defendant
TACO, INC. Defendant
TANENBAUM, MICHAEL A Attorney for the Defendant
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION Defendant
VELAN VALVE CORP. Defendant
WARREN PUMPS LLC, Individually and as Successor to The Quimby Pump Company Defendant
WELTER, JOSEPH J. Attorney for the Defendant
WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY (THE) Defendant
WILLIAM SUMMERHAYS' SONS CORPORATION Defendant
YAVITZ, JUDITH A Attorney for the Defendant
ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. a/k/a and Successor-in-Interest to Erie City Iron Works Defendant

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

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties