Preview
(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 0971072015 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 509700/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
wenn nen n ene een nen en ene ee nee n nen neem en en ene X
CREPINI LLC,
Index No.: 509700/2015
Plaintiff,
ANSWER WITH
- against — CROSS-CLAIM
EUGENE TULMAN, BORIS TULMAN,
MIKHAIL TULMAN, COOLTECH MECHANICAL
CORP., COOLTECH MECHANICAL GROUP, INC.,
MILMAR LLC, MILMAR FOOD GROUP, LLC,
MILMAR FOOD GROUP II, LLC and
MR HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants.
Defendants, Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group, LLC, Milmar Food Group II, LLC and
MR Holding Company, LLC (together, “The Milmar Defendants”), by their attorneys, Ostrer &
Associates, P.C. as and for their Answer to the Complaint, allege upon information and belief as
follows:
1. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 1 through 16, inclusive, of the Complaint.
2. Admit { 17 of the complaint only to the extent that it alleges that equipment was
delivered to Milmar LLC, denies that Milmar knew or should have known that the Tulmans and
Cooltech had no title or ownership rights to the equipment that was delivered to Milmar LLC,
and otherwise deny having knowledge or information sufficient t form a believe as to the truth or
falsity of the allegations.
3. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 18 through 20, inclusive, of the Complaint.ANSWERING THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4. Answering § 21 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reiterate and reallege each
and every response to the allegations stated or contained in s 1 through 3 above, inclusive, with
the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
o Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in § 22, of the Complaint.
6. Deny the allegations contained in fs 23 through 25 of the Complaint as to the
Milmar Defendants, and otherwise deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations therein.
ANSWERING THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Answering § 26 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reiterate and reallege each
and every response to the allegations stated or contained in Js 1 through 6 above, inclusive, with
the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
8. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 27 through 29, inclusive, of the Complaint.
ANSWERING THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9. Answering § 30 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reiterate and reallege each
and every response to the allegations stated or contained in Js 1 through 8 above, inclusive, with
the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
10. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 31 through 36, inclusive, of the Complaint.11. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in | 37, inclusive, of the Complaint, except admit that
Milmar Foods, LLC produces blintz products.
12. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in { 38, inclusive, of the Complaint.
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. The complaint fails to state a claim against Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group,
LLC, Milmar Food Group II, LLC, and MR Holding Company, LLC.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. | MILMAR FOOD GROUP, LLC is not a proper party to this action.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. | MILMAR FOOD GROUP II, LLC is not a proper party to this action.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. | MRHOLDING COMPANY, LLC is not a proper party to this action.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Defendants did not exercise dominion and control over the subject equipment.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. Plaintiff did not assert any alleged right, title or interest in the subject equipment
at any time, if any, that it was in defendants’ possession.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. Defendants did not interfere with plaintiff's alleged ownership rights to the
subject equipment.AS AND FOR A EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. Defendants have failed to mitigate its damages.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. The injuries and damages claimed of occurred in part or in whole because of
Plaintiffs’own negligent acts or omissions, malfeasance and culpable conduct and not due to any
act or omission of the Milmar Defendants.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND FIRST CROSS-
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS EUGENE TULMAN, BORIS TULMAN,
MIKHAIL TULMAN, COOLTECH MECHANICAL CORP. AND COOLTECH
MECHANICAL GROUP, INC.
22. If the Plaintiff sustained damages as alleged by them in its complaint, and which
damages arose from acts, omissions and conduct not of its own making, then such damages were
due solely to the wrongful acts and/or omissions and/or other wrongful conduct of the defendants
Eugene Tulman, Boris Tulman, Mikhail Tulman, Cooltech Mechanical Corp. and Cooltech
Mechanical Group, Inc.
23. Therefore, if the Milmar Defendants, or any of them, should be held liable to the
plaintiff, then the Milmar Defendants are entitled to recover from, or be indemnified by,
Defendants Eugene Tulman, Boris Tulman, Mikhail Tulman, Cooltech Mechanical Corp. and
Cooltech Mechanical Group, Inc. for all sums adjudged against it in favor of Plaintiffs and
resulting from the wrongful acts, omissions and/or other wrongful conduct of said defendants.
WHEREFORE, the defendants, Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group, LLC, Milmar Food
Group II, LLC and MR Holding Company, LLC, demands judgment:
(1) Dismissing the complaint herein;
(2) For their costs and disbursements;
(3) For judgment in their favor on their cross-claim; and(4) For such other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Chester, New York
To:
September 10, 2015
Ostrer & Associates, P.C. ww
Attorneys for Defendants
Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group, LLC, Milmar
Food Group II, LLC and MR Holding Company,
LLC
111 Main Street — P.O. Box 509
Chester, New York 10918
(845) 469-7577
Lawrence S. Rosen, Esq.
Patrick McPartland, Esq.
LaRocca Hornik Rosen, et al.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Crepini LLC
The Trump Building
40 Wall Street - 32" Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 530-4822
Eugene Tulman
2715 Royce Street
Brooklyn, New York 11234
Boris Tulman
412 Avenue W
Brooklyn, New York 11223
Mikhail Tulman
458 Neptune Avenue — Apt. 2
Brooklyn, New York 11224
Cooltech Mechanical Corp.
630 Flushing Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11206
Cooltech Mechanical Group, Inc.
630 Flushing Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11206
Preview
(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 0971072015 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 509700/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS wenn nen n ene een nen en ene ee nee n nen neem en en ene X CREPINI LLC, Index No.: 509700/2015 Plaintiff, ANSWER WITH - against — CROSS-CLAIM EUGENE TULMAN, BORIS TULMAN, MIKHAIL TULMAN, COOLTECH MECHANICAL CORP., COOLTECH MECHANICAL GROUP, INC., MILMAR LLC, MILMAR FOOD GROUP, LLC, MILMAR FOOD GROUP II, LLC and MR HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants. Defendants, Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group, LLC, Milmar Food Group II, LLC and MR Holding Company, LLC (together, “The Milmar Defendants”), by their attorneys, Ostrer & Associates, P.C. as and for their Answer to the Complaint, allege upon information and belief as follows: 1. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 1 through 16, inclusive, of the Complaint. 2. Admit { 17 of the complaint only to the extent that it alleges that equipment was delivered to Milmar LLC, denies that Milmar knew or should have known that the Tulmans and Cooltech had no title or ownership rights to the equipment that was delivered to Milmar LLC, and otherwise deny having knowledge or information sufficient t form a believe as to the truth or falsity of the allegations. 3. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 18 through 20, inclusive, of the Complaint.ANSWERING THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4. Answering § 21 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every response to the allegations stated or contained in s 1 through 3 above, inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. o Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in § 22, of the Complaint. 6. Deny the allegations contained in fs 23 through 25 of the Complaint as to the Milmar Defendants, and otherwise deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations therein. ANSWERING THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7. Answering § 26 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every response to the allegations stated or contained in Js 1 through 6 above, inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 8. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 27 through 29, inclusive, of the Complaint. ANSWERING THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 9. Answering § 30 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every response to the allegations stated or contained in Js 1 through 8 above, inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein. 10. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Js 31 through 36, inclusive, of the Complaint.11. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in | 37, inclusive, of the Complaint, except admit that Milmar Foods, LLC produces blintz products. 12. Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in { 38, inclusive, of the Complaint. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. The complaint fails to state a claim against Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group, LLC, Milmar Food Group II, LLC, and MR Holding Company, LLC. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. | MILMAR FOOD GROUP, LLC is not a proper party to this action. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. | MILMAR FOOD GROUP II, LLC is not a proper party to this action. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. | MRHOLDING COMPANY, LLC is not a proper party to this action. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Defendants did not exercise dominion and control over the subject equipment. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Plaintiff did not assert any alleged right, title or interest in the subject equipment at any time, if any, that it was in defendants’ possession. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Defendants did not interfere with plaintiff's alleged ownership rights to the subject equipment.AS AND FOR A EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. Defendants have failed to mitigate its damages. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. The injuries and damages claimed of occurred in part or in whole because of Plaintiffs’own negligent acts or omissions, malfeasance and culpable conduct and not due to any act or omission of the Milmar Defendants. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND FIRST CROSS- CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS EUGENE TULMAN, BORIS TULMAN, MIKHAIL TULMAN, COOLTECH MECHANICAL CORP. AND COOLTECH MECHANICAL GROUP, INC. 22. If the Plaintiff sustained damages as alleged by them in its complaint, and which damages arose from acts, omissions and conduct not of its own making, then such damages were due solely to the wrongful acts and/or omissions and/or other wrongful conduct of the defendants Eugene Tulman, Boris Tulman, Mikhail Tulman, Cooltech Mechanical Corp. and Cooltech Mechanical Group, Inc. 23. Therefore, if the Milmar Defendants, or any of them, should be held liable to the plaintiff, then the Milmar Defendants are entitled to recover from, or be indemnified by, Defendants Eugene Tulman, Boris Tulman, Mikhail Tulman, Cooltech Mechanical Corp. and Cooltech Mechanical Group, Inc. for all sums adjudged against it in favor of Plaintiffs and resulting from the wrongful acts, omissions and/or other wrongful conduct of said defendants. WHEREFORE, the defendants, Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group, LLC, Milmar Food Group II, LLC and MR Holding Company, LLC, demands judgment: (1) Dismissing the complaint herein; (2) For their costs and disbursements; (3) For judgment in their favor on their cross-claim; and(4) For such other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. Dated: Chester, New York To: September 10, 2015 Ostrer & Associates, P.C. ww Attorneys for Defendants Milmar LLC, Milmar Food Group, LLC, Milmar Food Group II, LLC and MR Holding Company, LLC 111 Main Street — P.O. Box 509 Chester, New York 10918 (845) 469-7577 Lawrence S. Rosen, Esq. Patrick McPartland, Esq. LaRocca Hornik Rosen, et al. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Crepini LLC The Trump Building 40 Wall Street - 32" Floor New York, New York 10005 (212) 530-4822 Eugene Tulman 2715 Royce Street Brooklyn, New York 11234 Boris Tulman 412 Avenue W Brooklyn, New York 11223 Mikhail Tulman 458 Neptune Avenue — Apt. 2 Brooklyn, New York 11224 Cooltech Mechanical Corp. 630 Flushing Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11206 Cooltech Mechanical Group, Inc. 630 Flushing Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11206