Preview
(FILED: CORTLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2016 12:29 PM INDEX NO. EF16-529
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF CORTLAND
JOSEPH AND SHARON WEGZYN,
INDEX NO. EF16-529
Plaintiff(s),
-against- FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
VERIFIED ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT,
DEMAND FOR VERIFIED BILL OF
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PARTICULARS AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION
Defendant(s).
Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), for its answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint states as follows:
ANSWER
1. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 1.
2. Ford admits the allegations of paragraph 2.
AS TO BACKGROUND
1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1 and
2 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein.
2. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraphs 4 and 5.
3. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
and 17.
EF16-529
09/16/2016 12:29:23 PM
Pages 5
ANSWER,
Elizabeth Larkin, County Clerk4. Ford admits the allegations of paragraph 7.
AS TO COUNT |
1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 17 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein.
2. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraphs 19 and 21.
3. Ford admits the allegations of paragraph 20.
4. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27.
AS TO COUNT I!
1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 27 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein.
2. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 29 and 31.
3. Ford admits the allegations of paragraphs 30, 32 and 35.
4. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 33, 34 and 36.
AS TO COUNT III
1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 36 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein.
2. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43.
3. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 39.
2 0f 5AS TO COUNT IV
1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 43 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein.
2. Ford admits the allegations of paragraphs 45 and 47.
3. Ford denies the allegations of paragraph 46.
Affirmative Defenses
AS AND FOR THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The alleged non-conformity, defect or condition does not substantially impair the use,
value or safety of the vehicle.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to permit defendant a reasonable number of attempts to repair the alleged
non-conformity, defect or condition, or otherwise failed to give defendant a reasonable
opportunity to cure the defect.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to file a Complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable Statute of
Limitations.
AS AND FOR THE FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for filing a Lemon Law claim.
AS AND FOR THE FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The warranty given to the plaintiff at the time of sale has expired by its express terms and
conditions.
WHEREFORE, the defendant, Ford Motor Company, demands judgment dismissing
the Complaint herein with costs or, alternatively, if the Complaint shall not be dismissed, that
the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against said defendant shall be diminished
3 0f 5in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the plaintiff bears to the culpable
conduct, if any, of said defendant.
Dated: September 16, 2016
New York, New York
s/James S. Dobis
JAMES S. DOBIS, ESQ.
DOBIS, RUSSELL & PETERSON, P.C.
7 Elk Street, Lower Level
New York, NY 10007
(212) 593-3310
Attorneys for Defendant, Ford Motor Company
TO: David J. Gorberg, Esq.
DAVID J. GORBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
103 Sibley Avenue
Ardmore, PA 19003
(215) 665-7660
Attorneys for Plaintiff
40f 5SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK :
Ss:
COUNTY OF CORTLAND
JOSEPH AND SHARON WEGZYN, INDEX NO. EF16-529
Plaintiff(s),
VERIFICATION
-against-
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant(s).
JAMES S. DOBIS, ESQ., an attorney duly authorized to practice before the Courts
of this State under penalties of perjury, hereby affirms:
1. | am a member of the firm of Dobis, Russell & Peterson, P.C., attorneys for
defendant, Ford Motor Company.
2. | have read the annexed Verified Answer to Complaint and the same is true
to my own knowledge.
3. The reason why this verification is made by affirmant and not by the defendant
is that the defendant does not maintain an office in the same county as affirmant has his
office.
Dated: September 16, 2016
New York, New York s/James S. Dobis
JAMES S. DOBIS, ESQ.
DOBIS, RUSSELL & PETERSON, P.C.
7 Elk Street, Lower Level
New York, NY 10007
(212) 593-3310
Attorneys for Defendant,
Ford Motor Company
5 of 5
Preview
(FILED: CORTLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2016 12:29 PM INDEX NO. EF16-529 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF CORTLAND JOSEPH AND SHARON WEGZYN, INDEX NO. EF16-529 Plaintiff(s), -against- FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S VERIFIED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR VERIFIED BILL OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PARTICULARS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Defendant(s). Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), for its answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint states as follows: ANSWER 1. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1. 2. Ford admits the allegations of paragraph 2. AS TO BACKGROUND 1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein. 2. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 4 and 5. 3. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. EF16-529 09/16/2016 12:29:23 PM Pages 5 ANSWER, Elizabeth Larkin, County Clerk4. Ford admits the allegations of paragraph 7. AS TO COUNT | 1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 17 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein. 2. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 19 and 21. 3. Ford admits the allegations of paragraph 20. 4. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. AS TO COUNT I! 1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 27 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein. 2. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 29 and 31. 3. Ford admits the allegations of paragraphs 30, 32 and 35. 4. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 33, 34 and 36. AS TO COUNT III 1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 36 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein. 2. Ford denies the allegations of paragraphs 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43. 3. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 39. 2 0f 5AS TO COUNT IV 1. Ford repeats and reiterates its answer to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 43 with full force and effect as though more fully set forth herein. 2. Ford admits the allegations of paragraphs 45 and 47. 3. Ford denies the allegations of paragraph 46. Affirmative Defenses AS AND FOR THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The alleged non-conformity, defect or condition does not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle. AS AND FOR THE SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to permit defendant a reasonable number of attempts to repair the alleged non-conformity, defect or condition, or otherwise failed to give defendant a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect. AS AND FOR THE THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to file a Complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable Statute of Limitations. AS AND FOR THE FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for filing a Lemon Law claim. AS AND FOR THE FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The warranty given to the plaintiff at the time of sale has expired by its express terms and conditions. WHEREFORE, the defendant, Ford Motor Company, demands judgment dismissing the Complaint herein with costs or, alternatively, if the Complaint shall not be dismissed, that the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against said defendant shall be diminished 3 0f 5in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the plaintiff bears to the culpable conduct, if any, of said defendant. Dated: September 16, 2016 New York, New York s/James S. Dobis JAMES S. DOBIS, ESQ. DOBIS, RUSSELL & PETERSON, P.C. 7 Elk Street, Lower Level New York, NY 10007 (212) 593-3310 Attorneys for Defendant, Ford Motor Company TO: David J. Gorberg, Esq. DAVID J. GORBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 103 Sibley Avenue Ardmore, PA 19003 (215) 665-7660 Attorneys for Plaintiff 40f 5SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : Ss: COUNTY OF CORTLAND JOSEPH AND SHARON WEGZYN, INDEX NO. EF16-529 Plaintiff(s), VERIFICATION -against- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant(s). JAMES S. DOBIS, ESQ., an attorney duly authorized to practice before the Courts of this State under penalties of perjury, hereby affirms: 1. | am a member of the firm of Dobis, Russell & Peterson, P.C., attorneys for defendant, Ford Motor Company. 2. | have read the annexed Verified Answer to Complaint and the same is true to my own knowledge. 3. The reason why this verification is made by affirmant and not by the defendant is that the defendant does not maintain an office in the same county as affirmant has his office. Dated: September 16, 2016 New York, New York s/James S. Dobis JAMES S. DOBIS, ESQ. DOBIS, RUSSELL & PETERSON, P.C. 7 Elk Street, Lower Level New York, NY 10007 (212) 593-3310 Attorneys for Defendant, Ford Motor Company 5 of 5