Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
------------------------------------------------------------X
LORETTA BRUCE, Index No. 719479/2023
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO VERIFIED
-against- COMPLAINT
ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., and
MARION SCOTT REAL ESTATE, INC.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------X
Defendants, ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INC., and MARION SCOTT REAL ESTATE, INC. (hereinafter “Answering
Defendants”), by their attorneys, BRODY LAW GROUP, PLLC., answering Plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint, herein states upon information and belief:
1. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the allegation set forth in the paragraphs marked “1”, “2”, and “3” of the Verified Complaint,
and each and every part thereof.
2. Answering Defendants admit upon information and belief for the purpose of this
litigation only as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “4”, “5”, and “6” of the
Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof.
3. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “7” and “8” of the Verified Complaint and
each and every part thereof.
4. Answering Defendants admit upon information and belief for the purpose of this
litigation only as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “9” and “10” of the Verified
Complaint and each and every part thereof.
1 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
5. Answering Defendants admit upon information and belief for the purpose of this
litigation only as to the allegations set forth in the paragraph marked “11” of the Verified
Complaint as to the record ownership of 169-65 137th Avenue, County of Queens, State of New
York, and deny knowledge or information as to fixtures and appurtenances thereto.
6. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “12” through “17” of the Verified
Complaint and each and every part thereof.
7. Answering Defendants deny the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “18”
and “19” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof.
8. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “20” through “25” of the Verified
Complaint and each and every part thereof.
9. Answering Defendants deny the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “26”
and “27” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof.
10. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “28” through “62” of the Verified
Complaint and each and every part thereof.
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. In the event that Plaintiff recovers judgment against the Defendants, and it is
determined that Plaintiff's damages were caused in whole or in part by two or more joint
tortfeasors, then Answering Defendants’ liability herein for non-economic loss may not exceed its
equitable share of said damages in accordance with its relative culpability, as provided by Section
1601 of the CPLR.
2
2 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. To the extent the Plaintiff, or any other party was guilty of culpable conduct,
including contributory negligence and/or assumption of risk, and should an award be made to
Plaintiff, same should be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct and/or
contributory negligence and/or assumption of risk attributable to said parties bears to the culpable
conduct and/or negligence which caused the damages.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. All or some of the claims asserted in the Verified Complaint are, or may be, barred
by the applicable statute of limitations.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Plaintiff failed to take all reasonable measures to reduce, mitigate and/or minimize
the damages alleged.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. That the Plaintiff has failed to join all necessary parties.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. The Verified Complaint, as drawn, fails to state a cause of action.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. That the Answering Defendants, pursuant to § 1412 of the CPLR, allege on
information and belief, that if the Plaintiff sustained any injuries or damages at the time and place
alleged in his complaint, such injuries or damages were as a result of the culpable conduct of the
Plaintiff and/or because of the Plaintiff’s assumption of risk.
18. Should it be found, however, that the Answering Defendants are liable to Plaintiff
herein, any liability being specifically denied, then Answering Defendants alleged that if any
damages are found, they are to be apportioned among the Plaintiff and all Defendants according
3
3 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
to the degree of responsibility that each is found to have in the occurrence, in proportion to the
entire measure of responsibility of the occurrence.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. While the Answering Defendants deny the Plaintiff’s allegation of negligence and
liability, any injury and damages, if proven, were the result of intervening and/or interceding acts
of superseding negligence and liability on the part of parties over which this Answering
Defendants neither have control nor had the right to control, and for which acts or omissions the
Answering Defendants are not legally responsible.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. That Answering Defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of any
hazardous or dangerous condition at the premises.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Plaintiff has not and cannot prove that Answering Defendants owed any duty to the
Plaintiff or that it breached any duty. It was not the owner or possessor of the premises and had no
contractual privity with Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. Plaintiff's recovery, if any, shall be reduced by the amount of any collateral
payments received, in accordance with CPLR Section 4545. Any past or future costs or expenses
incurred, or to be incurred, by the Plaintiff for medical care, dental care, custodial care or
rehabilitative services, loss of earnings or other economic loss that has been or may be replaced or
indemnified, in whole or in part, from a collateral source as defined in Section 4545(c) of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules shall not be recoverable from the Answering Defendants and the amount
of such damages will be diminished by the amount of the funds which Plaintiff has or may receive
4
4 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
from such collateral source. To the extent Plaintiff has made claims pursuant to New York’s Labor
Law, this Answering Defendants are not proper a defendant.
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23. Upon information and belief, any past or future costs or expenses incurred or to be
incurred by the Plaintiff for medical care, dental care, custodial care or rehabilitative services, loss
of earnings or other economic loss, have been or will be replaced or indemnified with reasonable
certainty in whole or in part from insurance benefits, Social Security benefits, Workers’
Compensation benefits, disability benefits, employee benefits programs and any other similar
source, related to or occasioned by the injury, disease or condition for which the plaintiff seeks
damages in this action.
24. If any damages are recoverable against the Answering Defendants, the amount of
such damages shall be diminished by the amount of the funds which Plaintiff has or shall receive
from such collateral source.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. That Plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged accident and
injuries claimed.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26. Answering Defendants reserve the right to file additional affirmative defenses as
may be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., and MARION SCOTT REAL ESTATE, INC. demand
judgment dismissing the Verified Complaint herein, together with the costs, disbursements and
expenses of this action, including attorneys' fees.
5
5 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
Dated: New York, New York
December 6, 2023
Yours etc.,
BRODY LAW GROUP PLLC.
___________________________________
Scott A. Brody, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant, ROCHDALE VILLAGE,
INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INC., AND MARION SCOTT REAL
ESTATE, INC
535 8th Ave., Fl 15
New York, New York 10018
(212) 233-2505
Scott.brody@brodylg.com
To: Via NYSCEF
David Resnick, Esq.
DAVID RESNICK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LORETTA BRUCE P.C.
450 Seventh Avenue,
New York, NY 10123
(212) 279-2000
6
6 of 7
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023
ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
)ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
I, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State
and say that I am the attorney of record, or of counsel with the attorney(s) of record for Defendant,
ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC. I have read the annexed VERIFIED ANSWER TO
VERIFIED COMPLAINT, know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge,
except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to
those matters, I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon
knowledge, is based upon the following: reports and investigation in file, conversations with
client.
The reason I make this affirmation instead of Defendant, is that Defendant is presently in
a county other than the county wherein your deponent maintains offices.
I affirm the foregoing statements are true under penalties of perjury.
Dated: New York, New York
December 6, 2023
____________________________________
SCOTT BRODY
7
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ------------------------------------------------------------X LORETTA BRUCE, Index No. 719479/2023 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO VERIFIED -against- COMPLAINT ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., and MARION SCOTT REAL ESTATE, INC., Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------X Defendants, ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., and MARION SCOTT REAL ESTATE, INC. (hereinafter “Answering Defendants”), by their attorneys, BRODY LAW GROUP, PLLC., answering Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, herein states upon information and belief: 1. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegation set forth in the paragraphs marked “1”, “2”, and “3” of the Verified Complaint, and each and every part thereof. 2. Answering Defendants admit upon information and belief for the purpose of this litigation only as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “4”, “5”, and “6” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. 3. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “7” and “8” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. 4. Answering Defendants admit upon information and belief for the purpose of this litigation only as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “9” and “10” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. 1 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 5. Answering Defendants admit upon information and belief for the purpose of this litigation only as to the allegations set forth in the paragraph marked “11” of the Verified Complaint as to the record ownership of 169-65 137th Avenue, County of Queens, State of New York, and deny knowledge or information as to fixtures and appurtenances thereto. 6. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “12” through “17” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. 7. Answering Defendants deny the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “18” and “19” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. 8. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “20” through “25” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. 9. Answering Defendants deny the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “26” and “27” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. 10. Answering Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations set forth in the paragraphs marked “28” through “62” of the Verified Complaint and each and every part thereof. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. In the event that Plaintiff recovers judgment against the Defendants, and it is determined that Plaintiff's damages were caused in whole or in part by two or more joint tortfeasors, then Answering Defendants’ liability herein for non-economic loss may not exceed its equitable share of said damages in accordance with its relative culpability, as provided by Section 1601 of the CPLR. 2 2 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. To the extent the Plaintiff, or any other party was guilty of culpable conduct, including contributory negligence and/or assumption of risk, and should an award be made to Plaintiff, same should be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct and/or contributory negligence and/or assumption of risk attributable to said parties bears to the culpable conduct and/or negligence which caused the damages. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. All or some of the claims asserted in the Verified Complaint are, or may be, barred by the applicable statute of limitations. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Plaintiff failed to take all reasonable measures to reduce, mitigate and/or minimize the damages alleged. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. That the Plaintiff has failed to join all necessary parties. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. The Verified Complaint, as drawn, fails to state a cause of action. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. That the Answering Defendants, pursuant to § 1412 of the CPLR, allege on information and belief, that if the Plaintiff sustained any injuries or damages at the time and place alleged in his complaint, such injuries or damages were as a result of the culpable conduct of the Plaintiff and/or because of the Plaintiff’s assumption of risk. 18. Should it be found, however, that the Answering Defendants are liable to Plaintiff herein, any liability being specifically denied, then Answering Defendants alleged that if any damages are found, they are to be apportioned among the Plaintiff and all Defendants according 3 3 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 to the degree of responsibility that each is found to have in the occurrence, in proportion to the entire measure of responsibility of the occurrence. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. While the Answering Defendants deny the Plaintiff’s allegation of negligence and liability, any injury and damages, if proven, were the result of intervening and/or interceding acts of superseding negligence and liability on the part of parties over which this Answering Defendants neither have control nor had the right to control, and for which acts or omissions the Answering Defendants are not legally responsible. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. That Answering Defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of any hazardous or dangerous condition at the premises. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Plaintiff has not and cannot prove that Answering Defendants owed any duty to the Plaintiff or that it breached any duty. It was not the owner or possessor of the premises and had no contractual privity with Plaintiff. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. Plaintiff's recovery, if any, shall be reduced by the amount of any collateral payments received, in accordance with CPLR Section 4545. Any past or future costs or expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by the Plaintiff for medical care, dental care, custodial care or rehabilitative services, loss of earnings or other economic loss that has been or may be replaced or indemnified, in whole or in part, from a collateral source as defined in Section 4545(c) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules shall not be recoverable from the Answering Defendants and the amount of such damages will be diminished by the amount of the funds which Plaintiff has or may receive 4 4 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 from such collateral source. To the extent Plaintiff has made claims pursuant to New York’s Labor Law, this Answering Defendants are not proper a defendant. AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. Upon information and belief, any past or future costs or expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Plaintiff for medical care, dental care, custodial care or rehabilitative services, loss of earnings or other economic loss, have been or will be replaced or indemnified with reasonable certainty in whole or in part from insurance benefits, Social Security benefits, Workers’ Compensation benefits, disability benefits, employee benefits programs and any other similar source, related to or occasioned by the injury, disease or condition for which the plaintiff seeks damages in this action. 24. If any damages are recoverable against the Answering Defendants, the amount of such damages shall be diminished by the amount of the funds which Plaintiff has or shall receive from such collateral source. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. That Plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged accident and injuries claimed. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. Answering Defendants reserve the right to file additional affirmative defenses as may be appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendants, ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., and MARION SCOTT REAL ESTATE, INC. demand judgment dismissing the Verified Complaint herein, together with the costs, disbursements and expenses of this action, including attorneys' fees. 5 5 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 Dated: New York, New York December 6, 2023 Yours etc., BRODY LAW GROUP PLLC. ___________________________________ Scott A. Brody, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SUMMIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., AND MARION SCOTT REAL ESTATE, INC 535 8th Ave., Fl 15 New York, New York 10018 (212) 233-2505 Scott.brody@brodylg.com To: Via NYSCEF David Resnick, Esq. DAVID RESNICK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff LORETTA BRUCE P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10123 (212) 279-2000 6 6 of 7 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2023 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 719479/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/06/2023 ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) I, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State and say that I am the attorney of record, or of counsel with the attorney(s) of record for Defendant, ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC. I have read the annexed VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT, know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following: reports and investigation in file, conversations with client. The reason I make this affirmation instead of Defendant, is that Defendant is presently in a county other than the county wherein your deponent maintains offices. I affirm the foregoing statements are true under penalties of perjury. Dated: New York, New York December 6, 2023 ____________________________________ SCOTT BRODY 7 7 of 7