Answer: Kerrin Conklin v. Stacy Laxen, Board Of Directors Of Cnyspca

On July 31, 2017 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Kerrin Conklin, and Board Of Directors Of Cnyspca, Stacy Laxen, for Torts - Other (Wrongful Term/Defimation) in the District Court of Onondaga County.

Preview
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA

Kerrin Conklin '
ANSWER TO AMENDED
. COMPLAINT
Plamtiff
-vs-
Index No. 2017EF3210
RJI No. 33-18-0276
Stacy Laxen, DVM,

Defendant,

Defendant Stacy Laxen, DVM ("Defendant"), by her attorneys, Barclay Damon LLP, as

and for her Answer to the Amended Complaint, hereby alleges as follows:

1. Defendant states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Amended

Complaint merely purport to state background information, to which no response is required.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and hereby denies

same.

3. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint and hereby denies

same.

4. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint and hereby denies

same.

5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Amended

Complaint.

20846809.1

1 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Amended

Complaint.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint and hereby denies

same.

8. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint and hereby denies

same but affirmatively states that, in or around February 2017, Defendant was an independent

contractor for the Central New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

("CNYSPCA") and compensated at a rate of $40 per hour for her services that she performed

weekly.

9. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Amended

time,"
Complaint but affirmatively states that, "at that she was an independent contractor for the

CNYSPCA.

10. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Amended

Complaint.

11. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Amended

Complaint.

12. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Amended

Complaint.

13. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Amended

Complaint.

-2-
20846809.1

2 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

14. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Amended

Complaint.

15. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint and hereby

denies same.

16. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint and hereby

denies same.

17. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint and hereby

denies same.

18. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint and hereby

denies same.

19. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Amended

Complaint.

20. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint and hereby

denies same.

21. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Amended

Complaint but affirmatively states that seventeen (17) cats were euthanized on May 17, 2017.

22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Amended

Complaint.

-3-
20846809.1

3 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Amended

Complaint.

24. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Amended

Complaint.

25. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Amended

Complaint.

26. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Amended

Complaint.

27. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with

respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint and hereby

denies same.

28. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Amended

Complaint.

29. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Amended

Complaint and reserves all questions of law for the Court.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

30. Defendant repeats and realleges in this Paragraph allof the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1-29 above.

31. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Amended

Complaint and reserves all questions of law for the Court.

32. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Amended

Complaint.

- 4 -
20846809.1

4 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

33. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Amended

Complaint.

34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Amended

Complaintandreservesal1questionsoflawfortheCourt.

ASANDFORASECONDCAUSEOFACTION:DEFAMATION

35. DefendantrepeatsandreallegesinthisParagraphalloftheallegationssetforthin

Paragraphsl-34above.

36. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Amended

Complaint.

37. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Amended

ComplaintandreservesallquestionsoflawfortheCourt.

38. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Amended

ComplaintandreservesallquestionsoflawfortheCourt.

39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Amended

Complaint.

40. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Amended

Complaint.

41. DefendantfurtherdeniesthatPlaintiffisentitledtothereliefdemandedunderthe

ad damnum cause of the Amended Complaint and denies all factual allegations contained

therein, along with each and every allegation of the Amended Complaint not hereinbefore

specificallyadmitted,controvertedordenied.

ASANDFORAFIRST,SEPARATE
ANDDISTINCTAFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE

-5-
20846809.1

5 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

42. Plaintiff's claims, in whole or in part, are barred by the New York Statute of

Limitations.

AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

43. The Amended Complaint fails to state any cause of action as against Defendant.

AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

44. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action in that the statements alleged in the

Amended Complaint attributable to Defendant were not defamatory per se and Plaintiff has

failed to allege any special damage(s).

AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

45. Defendant is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity from suit.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

46. The statements alleged in the Amended Complaint attributable to Defendant were

justified because of the occasion and circumstances in which the words were uttered and because

Defendant made the statements concerning an issue which she had an interest in and, therefore,

are subject to a qualified privilege.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

47. The statements alleged in the Amended Complaint attributable to Defendant are

not properly subject to a defamation cause of action because they are true and accurate and/or

because they constitute expressions of pure opinion.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

- 6 -
20846809.1

6 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

48. The statements alleged in the Amended Complaint attributable to Defendant are

not properly subject to a defamation cause of action because they were of public interest and

concern.

49. The statements alleged in the Amended Complaint attributable to Defendant are

not properly subject to a defamation cause of action because at alltimes relevant hereto, Plaintiff

was a public figure and/or a limited purpose public figure.

50. The statements alleged in the Amended Complaint attributable to Defendant were

made without actual or legal (constitutional) malice, and were and are within the protection of

rights and privileges, thereby precluding recovery by virtue of the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

51. Defendant acted in good faith and without malice at all times relevant to the

allegations in the Amended Complaint.

52. The statements alleged in the Amended Complaint attributable to Defendant are

not properly subject to a defamation cause of action because they were done without gross

negligence.

AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

53. The acts complained of in the Amended Complaint, to the extent they occurred,

were economically justified.

AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

54. Defendant denies the allegations in the Amended Complaint, however, to the

extent that the Amended Complaint contains allegations against her individually, she cannot be

- 7 -
20846809.1

7 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

held liable because all actions were performed within the scope of her role as a veterinarian for,

and agent, of CNYSPCA.

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

55. Plaintiff should be barred from recovery by reason of the fact that the subject

incident was entirely the result of culpable conduct on the part of the Plaintiff, or in the event

that Plaintiff is entitled to recover, the amount of damages otherwise recoverable should be

diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the Plaintiff bears to the

culpable conduct which caused the damages.

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

56. Upon information and belief, to the extent Plaintiff may be able to prove she

sustained injuries as a result of the incident alleged in the Amended Complaint, such injuries, if

any, were the result of conduct on the part of persons over which Defendant had neither control

nor right of control.

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

57. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of unclean

hands, waiver, and estoppel.

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

58. Plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injury and

damage, if any, allegedly resulting from the incident alleged in the Amended Complaint.

- 8 -
20846809.1

8 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

59. Any award of punitive damages claimed by the Plaintiff would violate the Fifth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Contracts Clause, of the Constitution of the United

States and the Constitution of the State of New York upon the following separate grounds:

A. An award of punitive damages would violate the Defendant's
right to due process.

B. An award of punitive damages would violate the Defendant's
right to equal protection of the laws.

C. An award of punitive damages would violate the guarantee that
excessive fines shall not be imposed.

D. An award of punitive damages would violate the prohibition
against impairing the obligation of contracts.

E. The procedures relating to the imposition of such damages

improperly fail to provide objective standards limiting the award

of, and amount of, punitive damages.

F. The procedures relating to the imposition of such damages

improperly allow the admission of evidence relevant to punitive

damages, in the same proceeding during which liability and

compensatory damages are determined.

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

60. Upon information and belief, some or all of Plaintiff's damages will be replaced

or indemnified, in whole or in part, from collateral sources, and Defendant is therefore entitled to

a collateral source offset under CPLR Section 4545.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

61. Defendant specifically denies liability for the damages alleged by Plaintiff, but if

liability is assessed against Defendant, and the percentage of liability is 50% or less of the total

- 9 -
20846809.1

9 of 10
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 2017EF3210
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2020

liability assigned to allpersons or entities liable, then pursuant to Article 16 of the Civil Practice

Law and Rules, Defendant's liability for non-economic loss shall not exceed its equitable share

determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person or entity causing or

contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Stacy Laxen, DVM, demands judgment as follows:

A. Dismissing the Amended Complaint herein;

B. That Plaintiff's damages, in the event that Plaintiff is entitled to recover,

be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to

the Plaintiff bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages; and

C. For such other, further and different relief which to this Court may seem

just, proper and equitable.

DATED: July 9, 2020 BARCLAY DAMON LLP

By: s/ Robert J. Thorp_e_
Robert J. Thorpe
Julie M. Cahill

Attorneys for Defendants

Barclay Damon Tower
125 East Jefferson Street

Syracuse, New York 13202

Telephone: (315) 425-2700

TO: Joseph S. Cote III,Esq.
COTE & VANDYKE LLP

Attorneys For Plaintiff
214 North State Street

Syracuse, New York 13203

- 10 -
20846809.1

10 of 10

Case Info

Judge

Deborah H Karalunas Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 09, 2020

Case Filing Date

July 31, 2017

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.