Preview
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0472372014) INDEX NO. 151646/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
eee nee nnn ennenmennnannnnnneennn x
RAJIV RAMIAS, Index No. 151646/2014
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER wITH
-against- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and
d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, 520
FIGHTH AVE BAKE, LLC, individually and
d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, CORP., and
d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, EDEL
LUCERO, individually, and ALEXANDER
XENOPOULOS, individually,
Defendants.
eee ee ee en enn enn nn nine amma,
Ave
Defendants, Pax Ventures, LLC d/b/a Pax Wholesome Foods, 520 Eighth
ulos
Bake, LLC, d/b/a 520 Eighth Ave Bake, Corp., Edel Lucero, and Alexander Xenopo
(collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, Kaufman Dolowich &
Ramjas
Voluck, LLP, answer the Verified Complaint (the “Complaint”) of Plaintiff Rajiv
(“Plaintiff”) as follows:
1 Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2 Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3 Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
6 Defendants neither admit nor deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 6 of
the Complaint as it is not an allegation of fact, but rather a description of future
references.
7 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
9 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
11. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the
Complaint as it is not an allegation of fact, but rather a description of future references.
12. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint
VDEEERNDNTS’
DEFENDA
E ALL E TO “MATERIAL
RESPONSE O FACTS”
14 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
17. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19 Defendants deny Plaintif?’s allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21 Defendants deny Plaintifi’s allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
25 Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
26. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
27. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
28 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
29, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
30 Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
31 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
32, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
33 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
34. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
35. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
36. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph36 of the Complaint.
37. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
38 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
39 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
40. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
Al Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
42 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
43 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Compiaint.
44. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
47 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
48 Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
49 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint
30. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE - DISCRIMINATION”
51. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1-50
as if fully set forth herein.
52. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the
Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions.
53. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
ISCRIMIN
DDI SC VAVER THE
UNDER LE
ATION RI MI YORK CITY
NEW NA TI ADMINIS
ON TRATIVE
OOOO
CODE - RETALIATION”
54. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1-53
as if fully set forth hercin
55. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the
Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions.
56. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
DEFENDAN
DEPEND ANTS RESPONSE
TS’ RESTA OF ACTION FOR
Eee CAUSE
Ye“THIRD
TO
DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE — INTEFERENCE WITH PROTECTED RIGHTS”
357. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1 to
56, as if fully set forth herein.
58. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the
Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions.
59. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
DEFENDANTS’
DEKENDAN ILS RESEVUASE TO “FOURTH
RESPONSE Jr nee ee ee OF ACTION
CAUSE i FOR
BOERNYN ALA UNDER THE
DISCRIMINATION ES NEW YORK CITY ADMINIST
— RATIVE
Eee
CODE — SUPERVISOR LIABILITY”
60. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Patagraphs 1 to
59, as if fully set forth herein.
61. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the
Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions.
62. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE LAW —
DISCRIMINATION”
63. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1 to
62, as if fully set forth herein.
64. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the
Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions.
65. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint.
66. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the
Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE LAW — AIDING &
ABETTING”
67. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1 to
66, as if fully set forth herein.
68. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the
Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions.
69. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
70. Defendants reserve the right to plead additional separate and affirmative
defenses, which may be ascertained during the course of discovery in this action or
otherwise. Defendants assert the following affirmative and other defenses without
assuming any burden of production or proof that they would not otherwise have.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
71. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFRIRMATIVE DEFENSE
72. Plaintiff's claims, or some of the allegations set forth therein, are barred in
whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
73. Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed to the extent that they are barred by
virtue of Plaintiff's unclean hands and/or principles of equitable estoppel and laches.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
74, Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, as some and/or all of
the individual Defendants were not “employers” as defined by the New York State
Executive Law or New York City Administrative Code.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver,
judicial, equitable and/or collateral estoppel.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
76. Insofar as Plaintiff purports to allege a claim or claims for physical or
mental emotional distress, including claims for recovery of medical expenses thereby
incurred, said claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the New York
Workers’ Compensation Law.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
77. Plaintiff's employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly
correct any purportedly discriminatory behavior in its workplace, and Plaintiff
unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities
provided by Plaintiff's employer or to otherwise avoid harm.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
78. To the extent Plaintiff has received other benefits and/or awards
attributable to an injury for which he secks compensation in this case, such benefits
and/or awards should offset any award he receives here for the same injury.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
79. The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to allow recovery of punitive
damages.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
80. Plaintiff failed to make a good faith and diligent effort to mitigate his
purported damages and injuries, and therefore, any relief awarded to Plaintiff should be
reduced.
—_
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
81. Tf Plaintiff sustained any injury, damage or loss by reason of any act, error
or omission on the part of Defendants, said injury, damage or loss must be reduced on the
basis of comparative fault or negligence of Plaintiff, or others, which contributed to and
proximately caused any such injury, damage or loss.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
82. Plaintiff's damages, which are denied, were caused in whole or in part by
the actions or omissions of third parties and for which Defendants are entitled to
contribution and/or indemnity.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
83. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
84. Plaintiff's retaliation claims fail as a matter of law to the extent that
Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
85. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part, or Plaintiff's recovery
should be limited, by the doctrine of after acquired evidence.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
86. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, with prejudice, and that the Defendants be awarded their reasonable attorney’s
fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Woodbury, New York
April 23, 2014
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
By:
gel R. Sevilla
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, New York 11797
(516) 681-1100
To Plaintiff:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
The Law Office of Jacob Aronaner
225 Broadway, Suite 307
New York, New York 10007
(212) 323-6980
4826-2169-1930, v. 1
-
VERIFICATION
Angel R. Sevilla (‘Affirmant”) hereby affirms, pursuant to New York C.P.L.R.
§3020(d), as follows:
That the Affirmant is an attomey with the law firm of Kaufman Dolowich &
Voluck, LLP, counsel of record for Pax Ventures, LLC d/b/a Pax Wholesome Foods, 520
Eighth Ave Bake, LLC, d/b/a 520 Eighth Ave Bake, Corp., Edel Lucero, and Alexander
Xenopoulos (collectively, “Defendants”) in this action. The Defendants are united in
interest in this action.
That the Affirmant has read the foregoing Answer, and knows the contents
thereof; that same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to
be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes them to be
true.
This Verification is made by Affirmant and not by the Defendants because said
Defendants do not reside within the County in which Defendants’ counsel maintains its
offices for the practice of law.
The grounds of Affirmant’s belief as to all matters not stated upon his knowledge
are as follows
Books and records maintained by the law firm Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck,
LLP and information provided by Defendants.
Date: April 24, 2014
By; gel R. Sevilla, Esq.
Kaufman Dolowich &Voluck, LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, New York 11797
Dated: Agerk 22, dery
Notary Public ERZBOWSKI
DIANE Wil
Notary Pubiic, State of New York
ND; 4842-0340-3802,v. {1 Mo. OTWI477%
‘Qualified in Sufoikk couty
Ceritiod in Nassau Cou!
Expires Octo! seestten_/
if
Preview
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0472372014) INDEX NO. 151646/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK eee nee nnn ennenmennnannnnnneennn x RAJIV RAMIAS, Index No. 151646/2014 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER wITH -against- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PAX VENTURES, LLC, individually and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, 520 FIGHTH AVE BAKE, LLC, individually and d/b/a 520 EIGHTH AVE BAKE, CORP., and d/b/a PAX WHOLESOME FOODS, EDEL LUCERO, individually, and ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, individually, Defendants. eee ee ee en enn enn nn nine amma, Ave Defendants, Pax Ventures, LLC d/b/a Pax Wholesome Foods, 520 Eighth ulos Bake, LLC, d/b/a 520 Eighth Ave Bake, Corp., Edel Lucero, and Alexander Xenopo (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, Kaufman Dolowich & Ramjas Voluck, LLP, answer the Verified Complaint (the “Complaint”) of Plaintiff Rajiv (“Plaintiff”) as follows: 1 Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2 Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3 Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6 Defendants neither admit nor deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint as it is not an allegation of fact, but rather a description of future references. 7 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint as it is not an allegation of fact, but rather a description of future references. 12. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint VDEEERNDNTS’ DEFENDA E ALL E TO “MATERIAL RESPONSE O FACTS” 14 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 17. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 18. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19 Defendants deny Plaintif?’s allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 20. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21 Defendants deny Plaintifi’s allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 23 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 25 Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30 Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 33 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 34. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 35. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 36. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph36 of the Complaint. 37. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 38 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 39 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 40. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. Al Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 42 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 43 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Compiaint. 44. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 45, Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 46 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 47 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 48 Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 49 Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint 30. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - DISCRIMINATION” 51. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein. 52. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions. 53. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ISCRIMIN DDI SC VAVER THE UNDER LE ATION RI MI YORK CITY NEW NA TI ADMINIS ON TRATIVE OOOO CODE - RETALIATION” 54. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1-53 as if fully set forth hercin 55. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions. 56. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. DEFENDAN DEPEND ANTS RESPONSE TS’ RESTA OF ACTION FOR Eee CAUSE Ye“THIRD TO DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE — INTEFERENCE WITH PROTECTED RIGHTS” 357. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1 to 56, as if fully set forth herein. 58. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions. 59. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. DEFENDANTS’ DEKENDAN ILS RESEVUASE TO “FOURTH RESPONSE Jr nee ee ee OF ACTION CAUSE i FOR BOERNYN ALA UNDER THE DISCRIMINATION ES NEW YORK CITY ADMINIST — RATIVE Eee CODE — SUPERVISOR LIABILITY” 60. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Patagraphs 1 to 59, as if fully set forth herein. 61. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions. 62. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE LAW — DISCRIMINATION” 63. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1 to 62, as if fully set forth herein. 64. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions. 65. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 66. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO “SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE LAW — AIDING & ABETTING” 67. Defendants repeat and reallege all previous responses in Paragraphs 1 to 66, as if fully set forth herein. 68. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint as they are not allegations of fact, but rather legal conclusions. 69. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 70. Defendants reserve the right to plead additional separate and affirmative defenses, which may be ascertained during the course of discovery in this action or otherwise. Defendants assert the following affirmative and other defenses without assuming any burden of production or proof that they would not otherwise have. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 71. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFRIRMATIVE DEFENSE 72. Plaintiff's claims, or some of the allegations set forth therein, are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 73. Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed to the extent that they are barred by virtue of Plaintiff's unclean hands and/or principles of equitable estoppel and laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 74, Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, as some and/or all of the individual Defendants were not “employers” as defined by the New York State Executive Law or New York City Administrative Code. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver, judicial, equitable and/or collateral estoppel. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 76. Insofar as Plaintiff purports to allege a claim or claims for physical or mental emotional distress, including claims for recovery of medical expenses thereby incurred, said claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the New York Workers’ Compensation Law. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 77. Plaintiff's employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any purportedly discriminatory behavior in its workplace, and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities provided by Plaintiff's employer or to otherwise avoid harm. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 78. To the extent Plaintiff has received other benefits and/or awards attributable to an injury for which he secks compensation in this case, such benefits and/or awards should offset any award he receives here for the same injury. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 79. The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to allow recovery of punitive damages. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 80. Plaintiff failed to make a good faith and diligent effort to mitigate his purported damages and injuries, and therefore, any relief awarded to Plaintiff should be reduced. —_ ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 81. Tf Plaintiff sustained any injury, damage or loss by reason of any act, error or omission on the part of Defendants, said injury, damage or loss must be reduced on the basis of comparative fault or negligence of Plaintiff, or others, which contributed to and proximately caused any such injury, damage or loss. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 82. Plaintiff's damages, which are denied, were caused in whole or in part by the actions or omissions of third parties and for which Defendants are entitled to contribution and/or indemnity. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 83. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 84. Plaintiff's retaliation claims fail as a matter of law to the extent that Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 85. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part, or Plaintiff's recovery should be limited, by the doctrine of after acquired evidence. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 86. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and that the Defendants be awarded their reasonable attorney’s fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: Woodbury, New York April 23, 2014 Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP Attorneys for Defendants By: gel R. Sevilla 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, New York 11797 (516) 681-1100 To Plaintiff: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. The Law Office of Jacob Aronaner 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, New York 10007 (212) 323-6980 4826-2169-1930, v. 1 - VERIFICATION Angel R. Sevilla (‘Affirmant”) hereby affirms, pursuant to New York C.P.L.R. §3020(d), as follows: That the Affirmant is an attomey with the law firm of Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, counsel of record for Pax Ventures, LLC d/b/a Pax Wholesome Foods, 520 Eighth Ave Bake, LLC, d/b/a 520 Eighth Ave Bake, Corp., Edel Lucero, and Alexander Xenopoulos (collectively, “Defendants”) in this action. The Defendants are united in interest in this action. That the Affirmant has read the foregoing Answer, and knows the contents thereof; that same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes them to be true. This Verification is made by Affirmant and not by the Defendants because said Defendants do not reside within the County in which Defendants’ counsel maintains its offices for the practice of law. The grounds of Affirmant’s belief as to all matters not stated upon his knowledge are as follows Books and records maintained by the law firm Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP and information provided by Defendants. Date: April 24, 2014 By; gel R. Sevilla, Esq. Kaufman Dolowich &Voluck, LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, New York 11797 Dated: Agerk 22, dery Notary Public ERZBOWSKI DIANE Wil Notary Pubiic, State of New York ND; 4842-0340-3802,v. {1 Mo. OTWI477% ‘Qualified in Sufoikk couty Ceritiod in Nassau Cou! Expires Octo! seestten_/ if