Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO.: 951267/2021
AIDA CABRERE,
VERIFIED ANSWER TO
Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT
-against-
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE NEW YORK;
ST. CECELIA AND HOLY AGONY CHURCH f/k/a
CHURCH OF ST. CECELIA; St CECELIA AND HOLY
AGONY PARISH f/k/a PARISH OF ST. CECLIA;
SISTERS OF MERCY OF THE AMERICAS;
INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE
CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, THE LASALLIAN REGION
OF NORTH AMERICA; INSTITUTE OF THE
BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS,
DISTRICT OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA;
CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY
REDEEMER; and DOES 1-5 whose identities are
unknown to Plaintiff
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
Defendant Sisters of Mercy of The Americas (hereinafter “Sisters of Mercy”), by
their attorneys Giordano, Glaws & Fenstermacher, LLP, hereby answering the Amended
Complaint of the plaintiff, alleges as follows:
Deny any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every
allegation contained in the paragraphs of the complaint numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, 12, 18, 23 and 29.
Repeats and Reiterates as necessary all responses to paragraphs of the complaint
numbered “1” through “15” with the same force and effect as if same were more fully set
forth herein in response to the paragraph of the complaint numbered “16”.
1 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
Deny in the form alleged each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs of
the complaint numbered 8, except to admit that the defendant Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas, a domestic not-for-profit corporation, were and are a Roman Catholic religious
order of women, with its principal place of business located in Silver Springs, Maryland,
generally and more commonly as the Sisters of Mercy, which partially staffed and/or
administered various Catholic schools, homes and/or orphanages during, before, after,
or about the stated time frame, including possibly during a certain timeframe Saint
Cecilia’s School, New York, New York and which enrolled various minors, orphans, foster
children and/or students, including possibly plaintiff, on before, after, or about the stated
dates, where by necessity the Sisters worked with minors, including potentially plaintiff,
with all alleged duties and responsibilities of any of those parties, including operation,
management, supervision, and control to be determined by this Court but that upon
information and belief, the alleged abuser, “Unknown Father” was a Diocesan and/or
parish priest, not a Sister of Mercy, and he was not an employee or agent of any of the
named Sisters of Mercy defendants, or under their direct supervision, authority, control
or employ, and as such, they had no attendant legal duties thereto.
Denies each and every alleged every allegation contained in paragraphs 19, 20,
21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47.
Denies in the form alleged every allegation contained in paragraph 13, 14, 15, 17,
31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 48 and 49, and respectfully refer all questions of law,
including duty, responsibility, statute of limitations, agency, “alter ego” status, control or
“exclusive control”, “business policies and procedures”, “scope of employment”, vicarious
liability, respondeat superior, Article 16 apportionment, “reasonableness”, corporate
2 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
structure analysis, jurisdiction, venue and jurisdictional limit applicability to the facts and
circumstances of the within action for determination to the Court.
AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeats and Reiterates as necessary all responses to paragraphs of the complaint
numbered “1” through “49” with the same force and effect as if same were more fully set
forth herein in response to the paragraph of the complaint numbered “50”.
Denies each and every alleged every allegation contained in paragraphs 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67.
Denies in the form alleged every allegation contained in paragraph 51, 52, 53 and
54, and respectfully refer all questions of law, including duty, responsibility, statute of
limitations, agency, “alter ego” status, control or “exclusive control”, “business policies
and procedures”, “scope of employment”, vicarious liability, respondeat superior, Article
16 apportionment, “reasonableness”, corporate structure analysis, jurisdiction, venue and
jurisdictional limit applicability to the facts and circumstances of the within action for
determination to the Court.
AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Repeats and Reiterates as necessary all responses to paragraphs of the complaint
numbered “1” through “67” with the same force and effect as if same were more fully set
forth herein in response to the paragraph of the complaint numbered “68”.
Denies each and every alleged every allegation contained in paragraphs 71, 72,
73 and 74.
Denies in the form alleged every allegation contained in paragraph 69 and 70, and
respectfully refer all questions of law, including duty, responsibility, statute of limitations,
3 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
agency, “alter ego” status, control or “exclusive control”, “business policies and
procedures”, “scope of employment”, vicarious liability, respondeat superior, Article 16
apportionment, “reasonableness”, corporate structure analysis, jurisdiction, venue and
jurisdictional limit applicability to the facts and circumstances of the within action for
determination to the Court.
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT
ALLEGES:
That the allegations in all actions are barred by the applicable Statute of
Limitations.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That if, at the time of trial, any of the issues herein have finally been determined
solely or partially against the plaintiff, or any other adverse party, by a tribunal, forum, or
court of competent jurisdiction, then in that event, the plaintiff, or any other adverse party
will be estopped from re-litigating such issue or issues.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
If any liability is found against the answering defendant, then said liability will
constitute 50 percent or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable, and as
such, the liability of this answering defendant to plaintiff for non-economic loss shall be
limited and shall not exceed this answering defendant’s equitable share as provided in
article 16 of the CPLR.
4 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
Plaintiffs have failed to take any or sufficient action, or such action as was
necessary, to mitigate or minimize the damages alleged or the conditions that allegedly
gave rise to those purported damages.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That in the event of any judgment or verdict on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendant
is entitled to a set-off against the judgment or verdict with respect to the amounts of any
collateral source payments to be received by plaintiff in the future pursuant to CPLR §
4545.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT
ALLEGES:
The injuries and damages, if any, allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused
or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the culpable conduct on the part of a third-party
or parties not then and there in the control of the answering defendants without any fault
or negligence on the part of the defendants contributing thereto.
AS AND FOR AN SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That the awarding and/or assessment of punitive damages violates the common
law, the Constitution of the State of New York, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, both of which guarantee to its citizens due process of
law.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
5 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
That the complaint and all causes of action fail to state a cause of action as against
the answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That the allegations alleged by plaintiff(s) in their Complaint as alleged do not
warrant or merit the imposition of punitive damages as against the answering defendant.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That the alleged abuser, “Unknown Father’s” conduct was the sole proximate
cause of the accident and injuries.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That in the event a settlement occurs, all of the provisions of General Obligations
Law 15-108 are applicable.
AS AND FOR A TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That if the servants, agents and/or employees of Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas did take part in or direct the acts complained of, said conduct was outside the
scope of their employment and Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas had no notice
of same.
6 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That if the plaintiff was abused in the manner alleged, such abuse was not caused
or due to the acts or omissions of the answering Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas or its servants, agents and/or employees.
AS AND FOR A FORTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That if the plaintiff was abused in the manner alleged, such abuse was not caused
or due to the acts or omissions of the answering Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas and such acts were outside the scope of the authority and employment of there,
were performed for a purpose foreign to any employment with this answering defendant
and was not ratified or consented to by Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas demands judgment
dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff herein, together with the costs and disbursements
of this action.
Dated: New York, New York
July 26, 2022
Louis P. Giordano, Esq.
________________________________
By: Louis P. Giordano
GIORDANO, GLAWS &
FENSTERMACHER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
61 Broadway, Suite 2235
New York, New York 10006
(212) 269-2353
7 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
TO: MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
Attention: David Matthews, Esq.
dmatthews@thematthewslawfirm.com
Liza Roys, Esq.
lroys@thematthewslawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2905 Sackett Street
Houston, Texas 77098
(713) 522-5250
FREESE & GOSS
Attention: Tim K. Goss, Esq.
Tim@freeseandgoss.com
Peter De La Cerda, Esq.
Peter@freeseandgoss.com
3500 Maple Ave, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
(214) 761-6610
D’ARCY JOHNSON DAY, P.C.
Attention: P.W. Smith, Esq.
pws@djd.law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1501 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10036
866.327.2952
FARRELL FRITZ, P.C.
Attention: Jana A. Schwartz, Esq.
Domenique Camacho Moran, Esq.
Irene A. Zoupaniotis, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer
400 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, New York 11556
(516).227.0700
FRENCH & CASEY LLP
Attention: Susan A. Romano, Esq.
sromano@frenchcasey.com
Attorneys for Defendants
St. Cecelia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a/
Church of St. Cecelia; St. Cecelia and Holy
Agony Parish f/k/a/ parish of St. Cecelia
29 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, New York 10006
8 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
(212) 797-3544
BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN LLP
Attention: Robert Connolly, Esq.
rconnolly@beereadylaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Brothers of the Christian Schools District Eastern North America Inc.
170 Old Country Road, Suite 200
Mineola, New York 11501
516-746-5599
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
Attention: Sabrina D. Ball, Esq.
Sabrina.ball@lewisbrisbois.com
Attorneys for Defendant
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, New York 10005
212.232.1300
9 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State,
states that I am counsel for the Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, by their
attorneys, Giordano, Glaws & Fenstermacher, LLP, in the within action; I have read the
foregoing Verified Answer to Amended Complaint and know the contents thereof and the
same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be
alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My
belief as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge is based upon the following:
• Investigative material contained in my file.
The reason I make this affirmation instead of the defendant is that said defendant
is a not for profit domestic corporation, none of whose offices are within the county where
your deponent maintains an office.
I affirm that the foregoing statements are true under the penalties of perjury.
Dated: New York, New York
July 26, 2022
Louis P. Giordano, Esq.
________________________________
Louis P. Giordano
10 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
Louis P. Giordano, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New
York affirms under penalty of perjury and says: I am not a party to this action, I am over
eighteen (18) years of age, and I am a resident of the State of New York. On July 26,
2022, I served the within VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT by email,
electronic service and/or depositing a true copy in a post-paid wrapper, in an official
depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service
within New York State, addressed to each of the following persons at the last known
address set forth after each name below, and/or by e-service via email and filing on
NYSCEF
TO: MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
Attention: David Matthews, Esq.
dmatthews@thematthewslawfirm.com
Liza Roys, Esq.
lroys@thematthewslawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2905 Sackett Street
Houston, Texas 77098
(713) 522-5250
FREESE & GOSS
Attention: Tim K. Goss, Esq.
Tim@freeseandgoss.com
Peter De La Cerda, Esq.
Peter@freeseandgoss.com
3500 Maple Ave, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
(214) 761-6610
D’ARCY JOHNSON DAY, P.C.
Attention: P.W. Smith, Esq.
pws@djd.law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1501 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10036
11 of 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022
866.327.2952
FARRELL FRITZ, P.C.
Attention: Jana A. Schwartz, Esq.
Domenique Camacho Moran, Esq.
Irene A. Zoupaniotis, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer
400 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, New York 11556
(516).227.0700
FRENCH & CASEY LLP
Attention: Susan A. Romano, Esq.
sromano@frenchcasey.com
Attorneys for Defendants
St. Cecelia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a/
Church of St. Cecelia; St. Cecelia and Holy
Agony Parish f/k/a/ parish of St. Cecelia
29 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, New York 10006
(212) 797-3544
BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN LLP
Attention: Robert Connolly, Esq.
rconnolly@beereadylaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Brothers of the Christian Schools District Eastern North America Inc.
170 Old Country Road, Suite 200
Mineola, New York 11501
516-746-5599
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
Attention: Sabrina D. Ball, Esq.
Sabrina.ball@lewisbrisbois.com
Attorneys for Defendant
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, New York 10005
212.232.1300
Louis P. Giordano, Esq.
________________________________
Louis P. Giordano
12 of 12
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO.: 951267/2021 AIDA CABRERE, VERIFIED ANSWER TO Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT -against- ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE NEW YORK; ST. CECELIA AND HOLY AGONY CHURCH f/k/a CHURCH OF ST. CECELIA; St CECELIA AND HOLY AGONY PARISH f/k/a PARISH OF ST. CECLIA; SISTERS OF MERCY OF THE AMERICAS; INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, THE LASALLIAN REGION OF NORTH AMERICA; INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, DISTRICT OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA; CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER; and DOES 1-5 whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X Defendant Sisters of Mercy of The Americas (hereinafter “Sisters of Mercy”), by their attorneys Giordano, Glaws & Fenstermacher, LLP, hereby answering the Amended Complaint of the plaintiff, alleges as follows: Deny any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs of the complaint numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 23 and 29. Repeats and Reiterates as necessary all responses to paragraphs of the complaint numbered “1” through “15” with the same force and effect as if same were more fully set forth herein in response to the paragraph of the complaint numbered “16”. 1 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 Deny in the form alleged each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs of the complaint numbered 8, except to admit that the defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, a domestic not-for-profit corporation, were and are a Roman Catholic religious order of women, with its principal place of business located in Silver Springs, Maryland, generally and more commonly as the Sisters of Mercy, which partially staffed and/or administered various Catholic schools, homes and/or orphanages during, before, after, or about the stated time frame, including possibly during a certain timeframe Saint Cecilia’s School, New York, New York and which enrolled various minors, orphans, foster children and/or students, including possibly plaintiff, on before, after, or about the stated dates, where by necessity the Sisters worked with minors, including potentially plaintiff, with all alleged duties and responsibilities of any of those parties, including operation, management, supervision, and control to be determined by this Court but that upon information and belief, the alleged abuser, “Unknown Father” was a Diocesan and/or parish priest, not a Sister of Mercy, and he was not an employee or agent of any of the named Sisters of Mercy defendants, or under their direct supervision, authority, control or employ, and as such, they had no attendant legal duties thereto. Denies each and every alleged every allegation contained in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47. Denies in the form alleged every allegation contained in paragraph 13, 14, 15, 17, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 48 and 49, and respectfully refer all questions of law, including duty, responsibility, statute of limitations, agency, “alter ego” status, control or “exclusive control”, “business policies and procedures”, “scope of employment”, vicarious liability, respondeat superior, Article 16 apportionment, “reasonableness”, corporate 2 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 structure analysis, jurisdiction, venue and jurisdictional limit applicability to the facts and circumstances of the within action for determination to the Court. AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Repeats and Reiterates as necessary all responses to paragraphs of the complaint numbered “1” through “49” with the same force and effect as if same were more fully set forth herein in response to the paragraph of the complaint numbered “50”. Denies each and every alleged every allegation contained in paragraphs 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. Denies in the form alleged every allegation contained in paragraph 51, 52, 53 and 54, and respectfully refer all questions of law, including duty, responsibility, statute of limitations, agency, “alter ego” status, control or “exclusive control”, “business policies and procedures”, “scope of employment”, vicarious liability, respondeat superior, Article 16 apportionment, “reasonableness”, corporate structure analysis, jurisdiction, venue and jurisdictional limit applicability to the facts and circumstances of the within action for determination to the Court. AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Repeats and Reiterates as necessary all responses to paragraphs of the complaint numbered “1” through “67” with the same force and effect as if same were more fully set forth herein in response to the paragraph of the complaint numbered “68”. Denies each and every alleged every allegation contained in paragraphs 71, 72, 73 and 74. Denies in the form alleged every allegation contained in paragraph 69 and 70, and respectfully refer all questions of law, including duty, responsibility, statute of limitations, 3 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 agency, “alter ego” status, control or “exclusive control”, “business policies and procedures”, “scope of employment”, vicarious liability, respondeat superior, Article 16 apportionment, “reasonableness”, corporate structure analysis, jurisdiction, venue and jurisdictional limit applicability to the facts and circumstances of the within action for determination to the Court. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That the allegations in all actions are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That if, at the time of trial, any of the issues herein have finally been determined solely or partially against the plaintiff, or any other adverse party, by a tribunal, forum, or court of competent jurisdiction, then in that event, the plaintiff, or any other adverse party will be estopped from re-litigating such issue or issues. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: If any liability is found against the answering defendant, then said liability will constitute 50 percent or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable, and as such, the liability of this answering defendant to plaintiff for non-economic loss shall be limited and shall not exceed this answering defendant’s equitable share as provided in article 16 of the CPLR. 4 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: Plaintiffs have failed to take any or sufficient action, or such action as was necessary, to mitigate or minimize the damages alleged or the conditions that allegedly gave rise to those purported damages. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That in the event of any judgment or verdict on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendant is entitled to a set-off against the judgment or verdict with respect to the amounts of any collateral source payments to be received by plaintiff in the future pursuant to CPLR § 4545. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: The injuries and damages, if any, allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the culpable conduct on the part of a third-party or parties not then and there in the control of the answering defendants without any fault or negligence on the part of the defendants contributing thereto. AS AND FOR AN SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That the awarding and/or assessment of punitive damages violates the common law, the Constitution of the State of New York, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, both of which guarantee to its citizens due process of law. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: 5 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 That the complaint and all causes of action fail to state a cause of action as against the answering defendant. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That the allegations alleged by plaintiff(s) in their Complaint as alleged do not warrant or merit the imposition of punitive damages as against the answering defendant. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That the alleged abuser, “Unknown Father’s” conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident and injuries. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That in the event a settlement occurs, all of the provisions of General Obligations Law 15-108 are applicable. AS AND FOR A TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That if the servants, agents and/or employees of Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas did take part in or direct the acts complained of, said conduct was outside the scope of their employment and Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas had no notice of same. 6 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That if the plaintiff was abused in the manner alleged, such abuse was not caused or due to the acts or omissions of the answering Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas or its servants, agents and/or employees. AS AND FOR A FORTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That if the plaintiff was abused in the manner alleged, such abuse was not caused or due to the acts or omissions of the answering Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas and such acts were outside the scope of the authority and employment of there, were performed for a purpose foreign to any employment with this answering defendant and was not ratified or consented to by Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas. WHEREFORE, Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas demands judgment dismissing the Complaint of the plaintiff herein, together with the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: New York, New York July 26, 2022 Louis P. Giordano, Esq. ________________________________ By: Louis P. Giordano GIORDANO, GLAWS & FENSTERMACHER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas 61 Broadway, Suite 2235 New York, New York 10006 (212) 269-2353 7 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 TO: MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES Attention: David Matthews, Esq. dmatthews@thematthewslawfirm.com Liza Roys, Esq. lroys@thematthewslawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 2905 Sackett Street Houston, Texas 77098 (713) 522-5250 FREESE & GOSS Attention: Tim K. Goss, Esq. Tim@freeseandgoss.com Peter De La Cerda, Esq. Peter@freeseandgoss.com 3500 Maple Ave, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 (214) 761-6610 D’ARCY JOHNSON DAY, P.C. Attention: P.W. Smith, Esq. pws@djd.law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 1501 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, New York 10036 866.327.2952 FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. Attention: Jana A. Schwartz, Esq. Domenique Camacho Moran, Esq. Irene A. Zoupaniotis, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer 400 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556 (516).227.0700 FRENCH & CASEY LLP Attention: Susan A. Romano, Esq. sromano@frenchcasey.com Attorneys for Defendants St. Cecelia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a/ Church of St. Cecelia; St. Cecelia and Holy Agony Parish f/k/a/ parish of St. Cecelia 29 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, New York 10006 8 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 (212) 797-3544 BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN LLP Attention: Robert Connolly, Esq. rconnolly@beereadylaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Brothers of the Christian Schools District Eastern North America Inc. 170 Old Country Road, Suite 200 Mineola, New York 11501 516-746-5599 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Attention: Sabrina D. Ball, Esq. Sabrina.ball@lewisbrisbois.com Attorneys for Defendant ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK 77 Water Street, Suite 2100 New York, New York 10005 212.232.1300 9 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 ATTORNEY VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, states that I am counsel for the Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, by their attorneys, Giordano, Glaws & Fenstermacher, LLP, in the within action; I have read the foregoing Verified Answer to Amended Complaint and know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge is based upon the following: • Investigative material contained in my file. The reason I make this affirmation instead of the defendant is that said defendant is a not for profit domestic corporation, none of whose offices are within the county where your deponent maintains an office. I affirm that the foregoing statements are true under the penalties of perjury. Dated: New York, New York July 26, 2022 Louis P. Giordano, Esq. ________________________________ Louis P. Giordano 10 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) Louis P. Giordano, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York affirms under penalty of perjury and says: I am not a party to this action, I am over eighteen (18) years of age, and I am a resident of the State of New York. On July 26, 2022, I served the within VERIFIED ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT by email, electronic service and/or depositing a true copy in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within New York State, addressed to each of the following persons at the last known address set forth after each name below, and/or by e-service via email and filing on NYSCEF TO: MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES Attention: David Matthews, Esq. dmatthews@thematthewslawfirm.com Liza Roys, Esq. lroys@thematthewslawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 2905 Sackett Street Houston, Texas 77098 (713) 522-5250 FREESE & GOSS Attention: Tim K. Goss, Esq. Tim@freeseandgoss.com Peter De La Cerda, Esq. Peter@freeseandgoss.com 3500 Maple Ave, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 (214) 761-6610 D’ARCY JOHNSON DAY, P.C. Attention: P.W. Smith, Esq. pws@djd.law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 1501 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, New York 10036 11 of 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2022 01:14 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2022 866.327.2952 FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. Attention: Jana A. Schwartz, Esq. Domenique Camacho Moran, Esq. Irene A. Zoupaniotis, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer 400 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556 (516).227.0700 FRENCH & CASEY LLP Attention: Susan A. Romano, Esq. sromano@frenchcasey.com Attorneys for Defendants St. Cecelia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a/ Church of St. Cecelia; St. Cecelia and Holy Agony Parish f/k/a/ parish of St. Cecelia 29 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 797-3544 BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN LLP Attention: Robert Connolly, Esq. rconnolly@beereadylaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Brothers of the Christian Schools District Eastern North America Inc. 170 Old Country Road, Suite 200 Mineola, New York 11501 516-746-5599 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Attention: Sabrina D. Ball, Esq. Sabrina.ball@lewisbrisbois.com Attorneys for Defendant ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK 77 Water Street, Suite 2100 New York, New York 10005 212.232.1300 Louis P. Giordano, Esq. ________________________________ Louis P. Giordano 12 of 12