On July 29, 2016 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Metro Woodworking Inc. Dba Metropolitan Woodwork,
and
5 Beekman Property Owner, Llc,
Atlantic Speciality Insurance Company,
Broadway Construction Group Llc,
Gfi Development Company, Llc,
for Other Real Property - Foreclosure on Mechanic's Lien
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2016 05:10 PM INDEX NO. 156523/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
METRO WOODWORKING INC. /DBA/
METROPOLITAN WOODWORK Index No. 156523/2016
Plaintiff,
REPLY TO
-against- COUNTERCLAIMS
5 BEEKMAN PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; BROADWAY
CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC; GFI DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, LLC; ATLANTIC SPECIALITY
INSURANCE COMPANY;
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, a Nevada Corporation, by its attorneys, The Law Office of Avram E. Frisch
LLC, as and for its reply to Defendants’ counterclaims alleges, upon personal knowledge as to
themselves and upon information and belief as to other matters, as follows:
IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERCLAIM
1. Plaintiff lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
of Paragraph 72 of the Counterclaims.
2. Plaintiff admits the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Counterclaims.
3. Plaintiff lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
of Paragraph 74 of the Counterclaims.
4. Plaintiff lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
of Paragraph 75 of the Counterclaims.
5. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Counterclaims.
6. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Counterclaims.
1 of 4
7. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 78 of the Counterclaims.
8. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 79 of the Counterclaims.
9. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 80 of the Counterclaims.
10. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Counterclaims.
11. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Counterclaims.
12. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 83 of the Counterclaims.
13. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Counterclaims.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Defendant’s counterclaims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. The Counterclaims fail to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Defendants’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of waiver,
estoppel and/or unclean hands.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Defendants have failed to name necessary parties to this action.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. Defendants’ prior material breach of the contract between the parties excused Plaintiff’s
further performance of its obligations thereunder.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. Defendant has suffered no damages or legally cognizable harm.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. Defendants’ claims are barred by the doctrine of unconscionability.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Defendants’ claims are barred by documentary evidence.
2
2 of 4
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as follows:
1. As demanded in Plaintiff’s complaint;
2. Dismissing Defendant’s counterclaims
3. An award of the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney’s fees
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
4. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Dated: November 29, 2016
New York, New York
The Law Office of Avram E. Frisch LLC
By: _____________________________
Avram E. Frisch, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1 University Plaza, Suite 119
Hackensack, NJ 07601
201-289-5352
Fax: 866-883-9690
3
3 of 4
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
METRO WOODWORKING INC. /DBA/
METROPOLITAN WOODWORK Index No. 156523/2016
Plaintiff,
-against-
5 BEEKMAN PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; BROADWAY
CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC; GFI DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, LLC; ATLANTIC SPECIALITY
INSURANCE COMPANY;
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
_______________________________________________________
REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Attorney for Plaintiff
150 Broadway, Suite 900
New York, N.Y. 10038
NJ: 1 University Plaza, Suite 119
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 435
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Email: frischa@avifrischlaw.com
(mail to New Jersey Address)
4 of 4
Document Filed Date
November 29, 2016
Case Filing Date
July 29, 2016
Category
Other Real Property - Foreclosure on Mechanic's Lien
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2016 05:10 PM INDEX NO. 156523/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X METRO WOODWORKING INC. /DBA/ METROPOLITAN WOODWORK Index No. 156523/2016 Plaintiff, REPLY TO -against- COUNTERCLAIMS 5 BEEKMAN PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; BROADWAY CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC; GFI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; ATLANTIC SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY; Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, a Nevada Corporation, by its attorneys, The Law Office of Avram E. Frisch LLC, as and for its reply to Defendants’ counterclaims alleges, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief as to other matters, as follows: IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERCLAIM 1. Plaintiff lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Paragraph 72 of the Counterclaims. 2. Plaintiff admits the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Counterclaims. 3. Plaintiff lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Paragraph 74 of the Counterclaims. 4. Plaintiff lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Paragraph 75 of the Counterclaims. 5. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Counterclaims. 6. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Counterclaims. 1 of 4 7. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 78 of the Counterclaims. 8. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 79 of the Counterclaims. 9. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 80 of the Counterclaims. 10. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Counterclaims. 11. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Counterclaims. 12. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 83 of the Counterclaims. 13. Plaintiff denies the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Counterclaims. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Defendant’s counterclaims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. The Counterclaims fail to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Defendants’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel and/or unclean hands. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Defendants have failed to name necessary parties to this action. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Defendants’ prior material breach of the contract between the parties excused Plaintiff’s further performance of its obligations thereunder. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Defendant has suffered no damages or legally cognizable harm. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. Defendants’ claims are barred by the doctrine of unconscionability. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Defendants’ claims are barred by documentary evidence. 2 2 of 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as follows: 1. As demanded in Plaintiff’s complaint; 2. Dismissing Defendant’s counterclaims 3. An award of the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney’s fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and 4. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: November 29, 2016 New York, New York The Law Office of Avram E. Frisch LLC By: _____________________________ Avram E. Frisch, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1 University Plaza, Suite 119 Hackensack, NJ 07601 201-289-5352 Fax: 866-883-9690 3 3 of 4 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X METRO WOODWORKING INC. /DBA/ METROPOLITAN WOODWORK Index No. 156523/2016 Plaintiff, -against- 5 BEEKMAN PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; BROADWAY CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC; GFI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; ATLANTIC SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY; Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X _______________________________________________________ REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Attorney for Plaintiff 150 Broadway, Suite 900 New York, N.Y. 10038 NJ: 1 University Plaza, Suite 119 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 435 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Email: frischa@avifrischlaw.com (mail to New Jersey Address) 4 of 4