2017 03:51 PM

4842-6176-1354

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------X

JOSEPH MARIO BICOCCHI and SARA

IVONNE MISHAAN ROSSELL,

Plaintiffs,

- vs –

AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------X

New York City Asbestos Litigation

(NYCAL)

Index No.: 190351/16

DEFENDANT PLOVER

REALTY, LLC’S ANSWER TO

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plover Realty, LLC (“Defendant” or “Plover”), by its attorneys, LITTLETON JOYCE

UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP, for its Answer to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Complaint”) as

follows:

GENERAL DENIALS

Defendant denies the allegations of the Verified Complaint, Amended Complaint, and

Second Amended Complaint insofar as said documents allege wrongdoing or any tortious conduct

alleged to be attributed to this answering defendant.

THE PARTIES

1. Plover is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

2. Paragraph 4 is not an allegation and no response is required. To the extent a

response is required, Plover denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.

3. Plover denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint

to the extent that such allegations are directed toward this Defendant. Defendant is without

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2017 03:51 PM INDEX NO. 190351/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2017

1 of 23

2

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations as they

relate to any other Defendant.


of allegations contained in Paragraphs 6 through 30 of the Complaint.

5. Plover denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 31 the Complaint

except to admit that Plover was a Foreign Corporation.


of allegations contained in Paragraphs 32 through 39 of the Complaint.

7. Plover denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 40 through 41 of

the Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed toward this Defendant.

8. Plover denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 42 of the

Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed toward this Defendant. Defendant is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations as

they relate to any other Defendant.


the Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed toward this Defendant.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE

10. Plover repeats and reiterates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 47 of the

Complaint inclusive and incorporates same as if set forth at length herein in response to the

allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.


the Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed toward this Defendant. Defendant is



2 of 23

3



AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDING IN BREACH OF

WARRANTY








AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDING IN STRICT LIABILITY








AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS



3 of 23

4








AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY





of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 92 through 98 of the Complaint.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDING IN CONSPIRACY AND

COLLECTIVE LIABILITY/CONCERT OF ACTION




21. Plover denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 100 through 114

of the Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed toward this Defendant. Defendant

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations

as they relate to any other Defendant.



4 of 23

5

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANT

CONTRACTORS




23. Paragraph 116 is not an allegation and no response is required. To the extent a

response is required, Plover denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 116.


of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 117 through 128 of the Complaint.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY

AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS










5 of 23

6

AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY








AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PUNITIVE DAMAGES




30. Plover denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 159 of the

Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed toward this Defendant. Defendant is



AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION SPOUSAL LOSS OF CONSORTIUM





of the allegations contained in Paragraph 161 of the Complaint.



6 of 23

7

33. Plover denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 162 of the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment against Plaintiffs, for:

a) Dismissal, with prejudice, of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

b) An award of costs of court and counsel fees;

c) Such other relief as may be equitable and just.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Plover.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

35. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

36. The claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

AS AND FOR A FORTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

37. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Plover.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. The injuries and/or illnesses, if any, sustained by plaintiff were caused or contributed

to by the fault, negligence and want of care on the part of plaintiff or on the part of

others for whose acts or omission or breach of legal duty Plover is not liable.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. To the extent that plaintiff failed and neglected to maintain this action in a swift,

diligent and/or timely fashion, plaintiff’s claims against Plover are barred by laches.



7 of 23

8

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

40. The injuries and/or illnesses of the plaintiff, if any, arose in whole or in part, out of

the risks, hazards and dangers related to the occupations of plaintiff, all of which were

open, obvious and well known to the plaintiff, and any claims against Plover are

therefore barred.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

41. To the extent that the injuries and/or illnesses of plaintiff, if any, were caused or

contributed to, in whole or in part, by intervening and superseding causative factors,

the claims against Plover are barred.

AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

42. To the extent that all of the alleged products were modified, altered, or in any way

materially varied, which may be causally related to the claims of plaintiff, plaintiff’s

claims against Plover are barred.

AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

43. At all times material hereto, the state of the medical and industrial art was such that

there was no generally accepted or recognized knowledge of any unavoidable, unsafe,

inherently dangerous, or hazardous character or nature of asbestos-containing material

when used in the manner and purpose allegedly described by the plaintiff and,

therefore, there was no duty on the part of Plover to know of any such character or

nature or to warn or protect plaintiff or others similarly situated.

AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

44. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the exclusivity of plaintiff’s workers compensation



8 of 23

9

remedy.

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

45. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the Statute of Frauds.

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

46. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the doctrine waiver.

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

47. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the doctrine of estoppel.

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

48. To the extent that plaintiff relies on New York Law L. 1986 C. 682 Section 4 as

grounds for maintaining this action, said section is unconstitutional and this action is

time barred.

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

49. Insofar as the claims herein are premised on plaintiff’s claims accruing on or after

September 1, 1975 to recover damages attributable to personal injuries or for

indemnification of such damages, the amount of damages recoverable thereon must

be diminished by reason of the culpable conduct attributable to plaintiff and/or the

other defendants herein, including their comparative negligence and assumption or

risk, in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to plaintiff bears to the

culpable conduct which caused the damages.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

50. This action does not fall within any exception enumerated in N.Y. C.P.L.R. Article

16, and, if liability of this defendant is found to be 50% or less of the total liability



9 of 23

10

assigned to all persons, the liability of this defendant shall not exceed this defendant’s

equitable share determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person

contributing to the total liability for noneconomic loss.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

51. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because of plaintiff’s failure to join necessary and

indispensable parties.

AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

52. Plover is not a party and/or real party in interest in connection with the claims asserted

by plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

53. Plaintiff may not bring this action as he has failed to exhaust all administrative

remedies.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

54. Plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries and

disabilities alleged in Complaint.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

55. The plaintiff contributed to the illnesses, either in whole or in part, by the use of

tobacco products and/or other substances, products, medication or drugs.



10 of 23

11

AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

56. At all times relevant to this litigation, the agents, servants and/or employees of Plover

used proper methods in handling the products complained of and conducting its

operations, in conformity with available knowledge, state of the art, and research of

the scientific and industrial communities.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

57. The damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part,

through the operation of nature.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

58. To the extent that the plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos product as a result of

conduct by Plover, which is denied, said exposure was de minimis and not a substantial

contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease which such plaintiff may have

developed, thus requiring dismissal of the claims against Plover.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

59. Insofar as Complaint seeks exemplary and/or punitive damages, each such claim is

barred by the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution and the New York State Constitution; by prescription of the Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 5 of the New York State Constitution

prohibiting the imposition of excess fines; and by the double jeopardy clause of the

Fifth Amendment of the United States Construction, as applied to the states through

the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 6 of the New York State



11 of 23

12

Constitution.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

60. All defenses which have been or will be asserted by other defendants in this action are

adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth at length herein as defenses

of the Complaint. In addition, Plover will rely upon any and all other further defenses

which become available or appear during discovery proceedings in this action and

hereby respectfully reserves the right to amend its answer for the purposes of asserting

any such additional defenses.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

61. If the plaintiff sustained damages as alleged, such damages occurred while he was

engaged in activities into which he entered, knowing the hazard, risk and danger of

the activities, and he/she assumed the risks incidental and attended thereto.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

62. No acts or omissions of Plover proximately caused any damages.

AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

63. Any asbestos-containing product that may have been present at the plaintiff’s job

locations was placed in any such locations and/or buildings upon specification,

approval or at the instruction of governmental or legislative agencies or bodies.

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

64. At all times alleged in Complaint, Plover followed the plans, specifications and

contracts set by a governmental body and did not deviate from said plans,

specifications and contracts and is thus cloaked with immunity.



12 of 23

13

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

65. Plover is not liable to the plaintiff for the damages alleged in Complaint because such

damages are excluded and not recoverable under express warranty.

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

66. Plover denies that the asbestos products alleged in Complaint are products within the

meaning and scope of the Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A and, as such,

Complaint fails to state a cause of action in strict products liability.

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

67. Plover had no knowledge or reason to know of any alleged risks associated with

asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products at any time during the periods

complained of.

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

68. The injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff are due to an idiosyncratic reaction on

the part of the plaintiff. As such, Plover is not responsible therefore.

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

69. Exposure to asbestos fibers attributable to Plover is so minimal so as to be insufficient

to establish a reasonable degree of probability that the products are capable of causing

injury or damages and must be considered speculative as a matter of law.

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

70. If Plover was on notice of any hazard or defect for which the plaintiff seeks relief,

which Plover denies, plaintiff also had such notice and is thereby barred from

recovery.



13 of 23

14

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

71. There is no justiciable issue or controversy.

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

72. The claims for damages have not accrued and are merely speculative, uncertain and

contingent.

AS AND FOR A FOURTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

73. The plaintiff has acted voluntarily, unnecessarily, prematurely and with no evidence

of injury to anyone at any job locations.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

74. None of the alleged injuries or damages was foreseeable at the time of the acts or

omissions alleged in the plaintiff’s Complaint.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

75. The plaintiff was warned of the risk of exposure to use of asbestos-containing

materials.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

76. The plaintiff’s cause of action for exemplary or punitive damages is barred because

such damages are not recoverable or warranted in this action.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

77. The plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is barred by the ex post facto clause of

the United States Constitution.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

78. At all times relevant to this litigation, Plover complied with all applicable laws,



14 of 23

15

regulations and standards.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

79. Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of collateral

estoppel.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

80. Any damages which may have been sustained by the plaintiff were caused and

contributed to by reason of the negligence of the plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

81. Any damages which may have been sustained by the plaintiff were contributed to, in

whole or in part, by the conduct of the plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A FOURTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

82. If the plaintiff sustained injuries in the manner alleged, all of which has been denied

by Plover, the liability of Plover, if any, should be limited in accordance with Article

16 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

AS AND FOR A FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

83. Plover denies that the plaintiff had any exposure to any asbestos product

manufactured, installed, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed,

delivered, sold and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, if any, by it, and

more particularly, denies that Plover manufactured, installed, supplied, developed,

tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed, delivered, sold, and/or otherwise placed in

the stream of commerce, any asbestos product at the time and upon the dates alleged

in Complaint.



15 of 23

16

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

84. Plover had no duty to plaintiff or has performed each and every duty, if any, owing to

plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

85. Plaintiff neither used nor was exposed to any asbestos-containing product

manufactured, assembled, installed, distributed, sold and/or supplied by Plover.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

86. The claims of plaintiff, if any, are barred by the provisions of 29 C.F.R. §

1910.1001(g) (2) relating to asbestos or the use thereof.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

87. Plover was never a member of any asbestos trade association and has no liability or

knowledge that might have arisen therefrom.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

88. Plover did not manufacture, process, or produce any asbestos materials and has no

liability that might have arisen therefrom.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

89. If Plover incorporated into its products any asbestos-containing materials supplied by

others, such asbestos was fully encapsulated, was not friable and would not and did

not cause harm to plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

90. This action is barred by virtue of the four year Statute of Limitations prescribed by

Section 2-725 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and other applicable



16 of 23

17

statutes of limitation; by virtue of failure of plaintiff to give requisite notice to Plover

under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, insofar as a cause of action is

alleged for breach of warranty or warranties, express or implied; as well as by virtue

of the absence of privity or of any contractual relationship between the plaintiff and

Plover.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

91. Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of arbitration and

award.

AS AND FOR A FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

92. Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of discharge in

bankruptcy.

AS AND FOR A SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

93. Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of payment.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

94. Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of release.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

95. Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained because of res judicata.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

96. Some or all of the causes of action may not be maintained against this defendant

because of the government contractor defense. See Boyle v. United Technologies, 487

U.S. 500 (1980).



17 of 23

18

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FORTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

97. Plaintiff has failed to plead any basis for claims of misrepresentation, deliberate

concealment or fraud against Plover, much less state claims with the specificity

required by the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

98. In the event plaintiff recovers a verdict or judgment against Plover, the said verdict or

judgment must be reduced pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4545(c) by those amounts which

have been, or will, with reasonable certainty, replace or indemnify plaintiff, in whole

or in part, for any past or future claimed economic source such as insurance, social

security, workers’ compensation or employee benefits programs.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

99. Plover hereby invokes the provisions of Article 50-B of the Civil Practice Law

And Rules.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

100. Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service of process on Plover.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

101. Plover avers that venue is improper.

AS AND FOR A SIXTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

102. If the plaintiff is barred from recovery, the action of her husband is also barred because

it is a derivative action.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

103. Plover reserves the right to assert any and/or all applicable affirmative defenses which



18 of 23

19

discovery may reveal appropriate.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

104. This Court is considered a forum non conveniens for Plover with respect to each and

every Count contained in plaintiffs’ Complaint.

CROSS-CLAIMS

Defendant asserts the following by way of cross-claims:

1. If Plaintiffs sustained damages at the time and place set forth in Complaint through

carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligence other than that of Plaintiffs themselves, including,

but not limited to, the manufacture and distribution of asbestos product, breach of warranty or

misrepresentations, either express or implied, and in strict liability in tort, these damages will have

been caused and brought about by reason of the carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligence of

the co-defendants and/or third-party, with indemnification and/or contribution to Plover

Equipment Corporation, as implied-in-fact or implied-in-law.

2. If Plover Equipment Corporation is found liable as to Plaintiffs and/or any third-

party Plaintiffs for the injuries and damages set forth Complaint and/or in a third-party Complaint,

the said co-defendants and third-party defendants will be liable jointly and severally to Plover

Equipment Corporation and will be bound to fully indemnify Plover Equipment Corporation.

3. Plover Equipment Corporation is entitled to contribution, in whole or in part, from

each of the co-defendants and third-party defendants now or hereafter named herein, together with

the costs and disbursements incurred in the defense of this action.

4. If Plaintiffs should recover a judgment against Plover Equipment Corporation, by

operation of law or otherwise, Plover Equipment Corporation will be entitled to judgment,



19 of 23

20

contribution and/or indemnity over and against the co-defendants, their agents, servants and/or

employees, by reason of their carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligence for the amount of any

such recovery, or a portion thereof, in accordance with principles of law regarding apportionment

of fault and damages, along with costs, disbursements and reasonable expenses of the investigation

and defense of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, Plover Equipment Corporation demands judgment dismissing Complaint

with costs and disbursements, and in the event of any judgment against Plover Equipment

Corporation, it demands judgment, contribution and/or indemnity over and against the co-

defendants for the amount of any such recovery or a portion thereof, in accordance with the

principles of law regarding apportionment of fault and damages, along with costs and

disbursements, including reasonable attorney fees.

Dated: Purchase, New York

August 4, 2017

LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP

BY: /s/ Diane H. Miller_______________

Diane H. Miller, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant, Plover Realty, LLC

The Centre at Purchase

4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 220

Purchase, New York 10577

Phone: (914) 417-3400

Fax: (914) 417-3401

File No.: 04200.00001

To: Belluck and Fox, LLP

All Counsel of Record

See attached Service Rider for List of Defendants



20 of 23

21

ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION

The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State,

shows:

That deponent is a member of the firm LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK &

KELLY LLP, counsel for defendant PLOVER REALTY, LLC in the within action;

That deponent has read the foregoing Answer and knows the contents thereof; that the

same is true to deponent's knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon

information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true; and

That this verification is made by deponent and not by defendant is because said defendant

is a foreign corporation, and its offices are outside of the county where the deponent maintains

her office.

The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under penalties of perjury.

Dated: Purchase, New York

August 4, 2017

LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP

Attorneys for Defendant, Plover Realty, LLC

BY: /s/ Diane H. Miller_________________________

Diane H. Miller



21 of 23



22 of 23



23 of 23

Documents

2017 03:51 PM