Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-------------------------------------------------------------X
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB AS Index No. 208814/2022
TRUSTEE OF WV 2017-1 GRANTOR TRUST,
Plaintiff,
-against- VERIFIED REPLY TO
COUNTERCLAIMS
NIKI SOUKERAS AS HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE TO Mortgaged Premises
THE ESTATE OF MARIA MOUNDRAKIS; et. al., 30-72 29th Street
Astoria, NY 11102
Defendants.
Block: 578
Lot: 39
--------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB AS TRUSTEE OF WV 2017-
1 GRANTOR TRUST (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP, as
and for its Verified Reply to the Counterclaims contained in the Verified Answer with
Counterclaims (“Answer”) filed by defendants, NIKI SOUKERAS AS HEIR AND
DISTRIBUTEE TO THE ESTATE OF MARIA MOUNDRAKIS, GEORGE MOUNDRAKIS AS
HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE TO THE ESTATE OF MARIA MOUNDRAKIS, and
KONSTANTINOS SOUKERAS AS HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE TO THE ESTATE OF MARIA
MOUNDRAKIS (“Defendants”) on December 14, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 28) alleges as
follows:
1. With respect to paragraphs “1” through and including “53”, since they are either
Defendants’ responses to the allegations of the Complaint or regarding Defendants’ affirmative
defenses, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations call for legal conclusions,
Plaintiff respectfully refers all questions of law to the court. To the extent a response may be
1 of 6
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024
required, Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in each of said paragraphs.
2. With respect to paragraph “54” of Defendants’ Answer pertaining to Defendant’s
counterclaims, Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in said paragraph.
3. With respect to paragraph “55” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff repeats and re-
alleges each and every response made with respect to the allegations made therein.
4. With respect to paragraph “56” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff admits the
allegations contained in said paragraph.
5. With respect to paragraph “57” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff admits the
allegation to the extent that defendants Niki Soukeras, George Moundrakis and Konstantinos
Soukeras are three heirs and distributees to the estate of Maria Moundrakis, and denies knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations therein.
6. With respect to paragraph “58” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff denies knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation therein, but denies any wrongdoing
by Plaintiff.
7. With respect to paragraphs “59” through and including “63” of Defendants’
Answer, Plaintiff denies knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained therein, but respectfully refers the Court to the NYSCEF documents found under Queens
County Supreme Court docket number 701156/2014, which documents speak for themselves, and
denies any wrongdoing by Plaintiff.
8. With respect to paragraphs “64” through and including “67” of Defendants’
Answer, Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in each of said paragraphs.
9. In response to the demands in the “Wherefore clause” of Defendants’ Answer,
Plaintiff denies the allegations set forth therein and affirmatively avers that Defendants are not
2 of 6
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024
entitled to any of the requested relief, or any other relief whatsoever.
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Defendants fail to state a cause of action against Plaintiff and further fails to state
facts sufficient to entitle Defendants to the relief sought, or any other relief, from Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. Plaintiff possesses a defense founded upon documentary evidence.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the
doctrines of laches, estoppel, unclean hands, bad faith, waiver, ratification and/or release.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, due to
breach of contract.
AS AND FOR AN FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action, as alleged, must be offset, in whole or
in part, with liabilities that are owed to Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by default
in payment under the subject loan documents.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred by the contractual terms and
conditions of the subject loan documents.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 of 6
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024
17. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the
Statute of Frauds.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. Any alleged injuries that Defendants claim to have suffered were caused solely by
Defendants’ own actions, negligence, culpable conduct, and/or disregard of the contractual
obligations to Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. Defendants have accepted, authorized, approved, or ratified any and all of the
alleged actions of Plaintiff and/or its agents, through acts or omissions.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the
Statute of Limitations.
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the
doctrine of unjust enrichment.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because
Defendants lack standing to assert same.
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 of 6
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024
24. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because
Defendants are not a party to the subject loan documents.
AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional defenses as they may become known.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, dismissing the counterclaims presented in
the Defendants’ Answer and awarding to Plaintiff costs in this action, including any legal fees and
any other relief for Plaintiff as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Garden City, New York
January 3, 2024
FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP
/s/ Kevin M. Butler___________
By: Kevin M. Butler, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1325 Franklin Avenue, Suite 160
Garden City, New York 11530
(212) 471-5100
kbutler@friedmanvartolo.com
5 of 6
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) :ss
COUNTY OF NASSAU )
Kevin M. Butler, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of
New York, affirms under penalty of perjury:
That I am an associate of FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff in the above-entitled
action; that I have read the foregoing Verified Reply to Counterclaims and know the contents
thereof; that the same is true to your affiant's knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to
be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, your affiant believes them to be
true.
The reason that this verification is made by the undersigned and not by Plaintiff, is that Plaintiff
maintains its principal place of business outside Nassau County, that being the county in which
your affiant maintains an office for the practice of law.
The grounds of your affiant’s belief as to all matters not stated upon your affiant’s knowledge, are
based upon the records of Plaintiff in your affiant’s possession.
Dated: January 3, 2024
Garden City, New York
/s/ Kevin M. Butler
Kevin M. Butler, Esq.
FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 of 6
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -------------------------------------------------------------X WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB AS Index No. 208814/2022 TRUSTEE OF WV 2017-1 GRANTOR TRUST, Plaintiff, -against- VERIFIED REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS NIKI SOUKERAS AS HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE TO Mortgaged Premises THE ESTATE OF MARIA MOUNDRAKIS; et. al., 30-72 29th Street Astoria, NY 11102 Defendants. Block: 578 Lot: 39 --------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB AS TRUSTEE OF WV 2017- 1 GRANTOR TRUST (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP, as and for its Verified Reply to the Counterclaims contained in the Verified Answer with Counterclaims (“Answer”) filed by defendants, NIKI SOUKERAS AS HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE TO THE ESTATE OF MARIA MOUNDRAKIS, GEORGE MOUNDRAKIS AS HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE TO THE ESTATE OF MARIA MOUNDRAKIS, and KONSTANTINOS SOUKERAS AS HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE TO THE ESTATE OF MARIA MOUNDRAKIS (“Defendants”) on December 14, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 28) alleges as follows: 1. With respect to paragraphs “1” through and including “53”, since they are either Defendants’ responses to the allegations of the Complaint or regarding Defendants’ affirmative defenses, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations call for legal conclusions, Plaintiff respectfully refers all questions of law to the court. To the extent a response may be 1 of 6 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024 required, Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in each of said paragraphs. 2. With respect to paragraph “54” of Defendants’ Answer pertaining to Defendant’s counterclaims, Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 3. With respect to paragraph “55” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff repeats and re- alleges each and every response made with respect to the allegations made therein. 4. With respect to paragraph “56” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff admits the allegations contained in said paragraph. 5. With respect to paragraph “57” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff admits the allegation to the extent that defendants Niki Soukeras, George Moundrakis and Konstantinos Soukeras are three heirs and distributees to the estate of Maria Moundrakis, and denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations therein. 6. With respect to paragraph “58” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff denies knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation therein, but denies any wrongdoing by Plaintiff. 7. With respect to paragraphs “59” through and including “63” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff denies knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein, but respectfully refers the Court to the NYSCEF documents found under Queens County Supreme Court docket number 701156/2014, which documents speak for themselves, and denies any wrongdoing by Plaintiff. 8. With respect to paragraphs “64” through and including “67” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in each of said paragraphs. 9. In response to the demands in the “Wherefore clause” of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff denies the allegations set forth therein and affirmatively avers that Defendants are not 2 of 6 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024 entitled to any of the requested relief, or any other relief whatsoever. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Defendants fail to state a cause of action against Plaintiff and further fails to state facts sufficient to entitle Defendants to the relief sought, or any other relief, from Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Plaintiff possesses a defense founded upon documentary evidence. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, estoppel, unclean hands, bad faith, waiver, ratification and/or release. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, due to breach of contract. AS AND FOR AN FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action, as alleged, must be offset, in whole or in part, with liabilities that are owed to Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by default in payment under the subject loan documents. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred by the contractual terms and conditions of the subject loan documents. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 of 6 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024 17. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the Statute of Frauds. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Any alleged injuries that Defendants claim to have suffered were caused solely by Defendants’ own actions, negligence, culpable conduct, and/or disregard of the contractual obligations to Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Defendants have accepted, authorized, approved, or ratified any and all of the alleged actions of Plaintiff and/or its agents, through acts or omissions. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the Statute of Limitations. AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants lack standing to assert same. AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 of 6 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024 24. Defendants’ claims and/or causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants are not a party to the subject loan documents. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional defenses as they may become known. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, dismissing the counterclaims presented in the Defendants’ Answer and awarding to Plaintiff costs in this action, including any legal fees and any other relief for Plaintiff as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: Garden City, New York January 3, 2024 FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP /s/ Kevin M. Butler___________ By: Kevin M. Butler, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 1325 Franklin Avenue, Suite 160 Garden City, New York 11530 (212) 471-5100 kbutler@friedmanvartolo.com 5 of 6 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 722924/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024 ATTORNEY VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) :ss COUNTY OF NASSAU ) Kevin M. Butler, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms under penalty of perjury: That I am an associate of FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that I have read the foregoing Verified Reply to Counterclaims and know the contents thereof; that the same is true to your affiant's knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, your affiant believes them to be true. The reason that this verification is made by the undersigned and not by Plaintiff, is that Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business outside Nassau County, that being the county in which your affiant maintains an office for the practice of law. The grounds of your affiant’s belief as to all matters not stated upon your affiant’s knowledge, are based upon the records of Plaintiff in your affiant’s possession. Dated: January 3, 2024 Garden City, New York /s/ Kevin M. Butler Kevin M. Butler, Esq. FRIEDMAN VARTOLO LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 of 6