On May 11, 2018 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Raymond M Geraghty,
and
Airco, Inc.,
Amchem Products, Inc.,,
American Crane & Equipment Corp,
Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation,
Blh, Incorporated,
Borgwarner Morse Tec Llc,
Bucyrus International, Inc.,,
Caterpillar Global Mining, Llc,
Caterpillar Inc., Individually And As Successor To,
Caterpillar Industrial Inc. Individually And,
Certainteed Corporation,
Clark Equipment Company,
Cnh America, As Successor In Interest To,
Crane Co.,,
Crosby Valve Llc,
Cummins, Inc,
Deutz Corporation,
Fiatallis North America, Inc,
Fmc Corporation,,
Ford Motor Company,
General Electric Company,
Honeywell International, Inc.,,
Itt Llc.,,
Kobelco Construction Machinery U.S.A., Inc,
Link-Belt Construction Equipment Company,
Marion Power Shovel Company,
Owens-Illinois, Inc,
Perkins Engines, Inc,
Pettibone Michigan, Llc,,
Pfizer, Inc.,
P & H Mining Equipment, A Subsidiary Of,
Pneumo Abex Llc, Successor In Interest,
Roebuck And Co.,
Sears,
Terex Corporation,,
The Manitowoc Company, Inc.,
Union Carbide Corporation,
U.S. Rubber Company,
Yorktown Crane Corporation,
for Torts - Asbestos
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
:
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: :
:
RAYMOND M. GERAGHTY :
: INDEX NO. 190149/18
Plaintiff, :
:
-against- :
: ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CUMMINS, INC., et al., : OF SERVICE OF
: SUMMONS AND ANSWER
: TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
:
Defendants. :
Defendant Cummins, Inc. (hereinafter “Cummins” or “Answering Defendant”), by and
through its attorneys Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba, P.C., hereby acknowledges receipt of the
Summons and Verified Complaint in this action, and answers Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows:
1. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to truth of the allegations and leaves the plaintiff(s) to their proofs.
2-23. Answering Defendant only admits that it was a corporation, which might have
done some business in the State of New York, but denies all other allegations, refers all questions
of law to the Court, and demands that plaintiff(s) prove the truth of these allegations at trial. As
for the allegations concerning other defendants, this defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of the allegations and leaves the plaintiff(s) to
their proofs.
Answering Defendant repeats and re-alleges its answer by reference to its latest Standard
Answer(s) to NYCAL – WEITZ & LUXEMBERG, P.C. Standard Asbestos Complaint for
Personal Injury No. 7 as if fully incorporated herein.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Cummins hereby demands judgment and costs in its favor
and against Plaintiffs and requests dismissal of the Complaint and cross-claims with prejudice.
1 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This defendant acted reasonably and with due cares toward the plaintiff(s) and violated
no duty owed to the plaintiff(s).
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The injuries and damages complained of were the proximate result of the negligence of
third parties over whom this defendant had no control or right of control.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This defendant denies that it was guilty of any negligence or breach of warranty which
directly caused or proximately contributed to plaintiff(s)’ alleged damages.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The alleged injuries and damages were the result of the plaintiff(s)’ sole negligence.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff(s)’ contributory negligence was greater than the negligence of the answering
defendant. In the event that such contributory negligence is adjudged not to be greater than the
negligence of answering defendant, the plaintiff(s)’ damages shall be diminished by the
percentage of plaintiff(s)’ contributory negligence.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks jurisdiction over this defendant.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The venue of this action is improper and this defendant reserves the right to move for a
transfer.
2 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Statute of Limitations and/or Statute of Repose bars plaintiff(s)’ action, and
accordingly, this defendant reserves the right to move for dismissal at or before trial.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This defendant denies breach of any warranties, expressed or implied.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff(s) had full knowledge of all facts, circumstances and conditions existing
with respect to the use of any product mentioned in the Complaint and voluntarily assumed the
risk from and attendant to the use of products manufactured or supplied by this defendant.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This defendant is not liable to the plaintiff(s) in strict liability in tort.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff(s) consented to the acts alleged in the Complaint.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Since plaintiff(s)’ employers are primarily liable for plaintiff(s)’ current injuries and
plaintiff (s) brought or have the right to bring an action for workmen's compensation benefits,
plaintiff(s)’ damages, if any, are barred by the exclusive remedial provisions under the workers'
compensation law and other applicable state laws. In the alternative, the damages should at least
be reduced by the amount of compensation received from the plaintiff(s)’ employers.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The incident and injuries complained of were caused by unauthorized, unintended and
improper use of the products complained of and as a result of plaintiff(s)’ failure to exercise
reasonable and ordinary care, caution or vigilance.
3 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s)’ injuries and damages were caused by the superseding and intervening acts or
the fault of other parties over whom this defendant had no control and for whose actions this
defendant is not liable.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff(s)’ action is barred by the Doctrine of Laches.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This defendant never designed, manufactured, sold or distributed a defective product
which caused plaintiff(s)’ damages.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Inasmuch as the plaintiff(s) are unable to identify the manufacturer of the product that
allegedly caused his injuries, plaintiff(s) fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If
relief were granted in the absence of product identification, it would contravene with defendant's
constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process of law and equal protection, as
well as, defendant's constitutional rights to protection against the taking of private property for
public use without just compensation as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The applicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code bar the alleged claims.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times relevant hereto, this defendant followed plans, specifications and contracts
set by a governmental body and did not deviate from said plans, contracts and specifications,
therefore, its actions are cloaked with immunity.
4 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times relevant hereto, this defendant complied with all applicable laws, regulations
and standards.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff(s)’ alleged injuries were caused in whole or in part by the misuse, abuse
and/or unauthorized alteration of this defendant or other defendant's products.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
All oral warranties upon which plaintiff(s) allegedly relied upon are inadmissible and
unavailable due to the applicable statute of frauds.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s)’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the proscription of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s)’ claim for punitive damages are barred by the "double jeopardy" clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the
Fourteenth Amendment.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff(s)’ action is barred by the doctrine of estoppel and waiver.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s)’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the Due Process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the New York State
Constitution.
5 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any benefit or other compensation received by plaintiff(s) from any other defendants or
any collateral source, including workers compensation, social security death benefits and/or
insurance, should reduce or set off the amount of any judgment against this defendant.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s) failed to mitigate or reduce his/her alleged injuries.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
All causes of action based on expressed or implied warranties are legally insufficient
since plaintiff(s) failed to allege privity of contract between plaintiffs and answering defendant.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any asbestos exposure from this defendant's products are so minimal that there is
insufficient evidence that this defendant's products caused plaintiff(s)’ alleged injuries.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Even if plaintiff(s) can establish a breach of warranty, plaintiff(s) failed to provide
prompt and proper notice of said breach of warranty to the answering defendant.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s) did not directly or indirectly purchase any asbestos-containing products from
this defendant. Therefore, plaintiff(s) neither received nor relied upon any representation or
warranty allegedly made regarding this defendant's products.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s)’ claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The answering defendants incorporates and adopts all affirmative defenses raised and
plead by any other defendants except such defenses which refer to this answering defendant.
6 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
Additionally, defendant specifically reserves the right to amend this answer and assert any
additional defenses that might become available as discovery continues.
CROSSCLAIMS
1. This defendant demands contribution, jointly and severally, from all other
defendants, potential defendants, and potential third-party defendant.
2. This defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the plaintiff(s), but asserts that if
it is in any way found to be liable, such liability is passive, indirect and secondary, and
answering defendant hereby demands indemnification from all responsible and liable co-
defendants.
WHEREFORE, defendant Cummins, Inc. hereby demands judgment in its favor and
against all other defendants, potential defendants and potential third-party defendants for
contribution and indemnification.
ANSWER TO CROSSCLAIMS
This defendant denies all allegations of all crossclaims asserted against Cummins, Inc.,
which have been filed or hereafter to be filed by any and all co-defendants in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Cummins, Inc. hereby demands judgment in its favor and
against all other defendants and requests that the Court dismiss all crossclaims filed against this
defendant with prejudice.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The answering defendant hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
John S. Howarth, Esquire is hereby designated as trial counsel in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Cummins, Inc. hereby demands judgment and costs in its
favor and against plaintiff(s) and requests dismissal of the Complaint and cross-claims with
prejudice.
7 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019
Dated: July 24, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
New York, New York WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA
/s/ John S. Howarth
By: John S. Howarth, Esquire.
By: Keith Babula, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant,
Cummins, Inc.
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
(212) 943-9245
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: : : RAYMOND M. GERAGHTY : : INDEX NO. 190149/18 Plaintiff, : : -against- : : ACKNOWLEDGMENT CUMMINS, INC., et al., : OF SERVICE OF : SUMMONS AND ANSWER : TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT : Defendants. : Defendant Cummins, Inc. (hereinafter “Cummins” or “Answering Defendant”), by and through its attorneys Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba, P.C., hereby acknowledges receipt of the Summons and Verified Complaint in this action, and answers Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows: 1. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of the allegations and leaves the plaintiff(s) to their proofs. 2-23. Answering Defendant only admits that it was a corporation, which might have done some business in the State of New York, but denies all other allegations, refers all questions of law to the Court, and demands that plaintiff(s) prove the truth of these allegations at trial. As for the allegations concerning other defendants, this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of the allegations and leaves the plaintiff(s) to their proofs. Answering Defendant repeats and re-alleges its answer by reference to its latest Standard Answer(s) to NYCAL – WEITZ & LUXEMBERG, P.C. Standard Asbestos Complaint for Personal Injury No. 7 as if fully incorporated herein. WHEREFORE, Defendant Cummins hereby demands judgment and costs in its favor and against Plaintiffs and requests dismissal of the Complaint and cross-claims with prejudice. 1 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This defendant acted reasonably and with due cares toward the plaintiff(s) and violated no duty owed to the plaintiff(s). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries and damages complained of were the proximate result of the negligence of third parties over whom this defendant had no control or right of control. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This defendant denies that it was guilty of any negligence or breach of warranty which directly caused or proximately contributed to plaintiff(s)’ alleged damages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The alleged injuries and damages were the result of the plaintiff(s)’ sole negligence. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff(s)’ contributory negligence was greater than the negligence of the answering defendant. In the event that such contributory negligence is adjudged not to be greater than the negligence of answering defendant, the plaintiff(s)’ damages shall be diminished by the percentage of plaintiff(s)’ contributory negligence. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks jurisdiction over this defendant. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The venue of this action is improper and this defendant reserves the right to move for a transfer. 2 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Statute of Limitations and/or Statute of Repose bars plaintiff(s)’ action, and accordingly, this defendant reserves the right to move for dismissal at or before trial. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This defendant denies breach of any warranties, expressed or implied. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff(s) had full knowledge of all facts, circumstances and conditions existing with respect to the use of any product mentioned in the Complaint and voluntarily assumed the risk from and attendant to the use of products manufactured or supplied by this defendant. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This defendant is not liable to the plaintiff(s) in strict liability in tort. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff(s) consented to the acts alleged in the Complaint. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Since plaintiff(s)’ employers are primarily liable for plaintiff(s)’ current injuries and plaintiff (s) brought or have the right to bring an action for workmen's compensation benefits, plaintiff(s)’ damages, if any, are barred by the exclusive remedial provisions under the workers' compensation law and other applicable state laws. In the alternative, the damages should at least be reduced by the amount of compensation received from the plaintiff(s)’ employers. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The incident and injuries complained of were caused by unauthorized, unintended and improper use of the products complained of and as a result of plaintiff(s)’ failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, caution or vigilance. 3 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s)’ injuries and damages were caused by the superseding and intervening acts or the fault of other parties over whom this defendant had no control and for whose actions this defendant is not liable. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff(s)’ action is barred by the Doctrine of Laches. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This defendant never designed, manufactured, sold or distributed a defective product which caused plaintiff(s)’ damages. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Inasmuch as the plaintiff(s) are unable to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly caused his injuries, plaintiff(s) fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If relief were granted in the absence of product identification, it would contravene with defendant's constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process of law and equal protection, as well as, defendant's constitutional rights to protection against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation as preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The applicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code bar the alleged claims. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times relevant hereto, this defendant followed plans, specifications and contracts set by a governmental body and did not deviate from said plans, contracts and specifications, therefore, its actions are cloaked with immunity. 4 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times relevant hereto, this defendant complied with all applicable laws, regulations and standards. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff(s)’ alleged injuries were caused in whole or in part by the misuse, abuse and/or unauthorized alteration of this defendant or other defendant's products. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All oral warranties upon which plaintiff(s) allegedly relied upon are inadmissible and unavailable due to the applicable statute of frauds. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s)’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the proscription of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s)’ claim for punitive damages are barred by the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff(s)’ action is barred by the doctrine of estoppel and waiver. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s)’ claim for punitive damages is barred by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the New York State Constitution. 5 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any benefit or other compensation received by plaintiff(s) from any other defendants or any collateral source, including workers compensation, social security death benefits and/or insurance, should reduce or set off the amount of any judgment against this defendant. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s) failed to mitigate or reduce his/her alleged injuries. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All causes of action based on expressed or implied warranties are legally insufficient since plaintiff(s) failed to allege privity of contract between plaintiffs and answering defendant. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any asbestos exposure from this defendant's products are so minimal that there is insufficient evidence that this defendant's products caused plaintiff(s)’ alleged injuries. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Even if plaintiff(s) can establish a breach of warranty, plaintiff(s) failed to provide prompt and proper notice of said breach of warranty to the answering defendant. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s) did not directly or indirectly purchase any asbestos-containing products from this defendant. Therefore, plaintiff(s) neither received nor relied upon any representation or warranty allegedly made regarding this defendant's products. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s)’ claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The answering defendants incorporates and adopts all affirmative defenses raised and plead by any other defendants except such defenses which refer to this answering defendant. 6 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 Additionally, defendant specifically reserves the right to amend this answer and assert any additional defenses that might become available as discovery continues. CROSSCLAIMS 1. This defendant demands contribution, jointly and severally, from all other defendants, potential defendants, and potential third-party defendant. 2. This defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the plaintiff(s), but asserts that if it is in any way found to be liable, such liability is passive, indirect and secondary, and answering defendant hereby demands indemnification from all responsible and liable co- defendants. WHEREFORE, defendant Cummins, Inc. hereby demands judgment in its favor and against all other defendants, potential defendants and potential third-party defendants for contribution and indemnification. ANSWER TO CROSSCLAIMS This defendant denies all allegations of all crossclaims asserted against Cummins, Inc., which have been filed or hereafter to be filed by any and all co-defendants in this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant Cummins, Inc. hereby demands judgment in its favor and against all other defendants and requests that the Court dismiss all crossclaims filed against this defendant with prejudice. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL The answering defendant hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL John S. Howarth, Esquire is hereby designated as trial counsel in this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant Cummins, Inc. hereby demands judgment and costs in its favor and against plaintiff(s) and requests dismissal of the Complaint and cross-claims with prejudice. 7 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2019 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 190149/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2019 Dated: July 24, 2019 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA /s/ John S. Howarth By: John S. Howarth, Esquire. By: Keith Babula, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Cummins, Inc. 140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 (212) 943-9245 8 of 8