FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :28 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2017

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :28 AM INDEX / RECEIVED : 12/28/2017

2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :28 AM INDEX /2015 INDEX /2015 F I L E D : NEW YORK COUNTY CL ERK 0 2 / 2 4 / : 31 P MI RECEIVED : 02/24/2C17 12/28/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ~ COUNTY OF NEW YORK LANES J J FLOOR COVERINGS & INTERIORS, INC., v. f ~ I II ~ DEFENDANT SELEC TECH, INC.S Plaintiff, AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM SELEC TECH, INC., et al. Defendant, -. Defendant, SelecTech, Inc s (Defendant), files its Amended Answer, affumative defenses and. Counterclaim to Plaintiffs ~ Amended ~ Complaint, and would respectfully show the Court the following: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1. With respect to Paragraph 1,3,4,5,6 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant ~ lacks ~ knowledge and information~ sufficient to form a belief as to the tmth of the allegations. ~ ~ With respect to Paragraph ~ ~ 2, Defendant.s denies the allegations ~. contained ~ therein but admits. that~ it is a foreign corporation ~ and that~ it shipped product to New York State. 2. Defendant ~ denies the allegations ~ contained ~ in Paragraphs ~ 7,8 ~ and ~ leave questions oflaw to the appropriate judge. 3. Defendant denies the allegations ~ contained in Paragraphs ~ ~ 9,10. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 4. With respect to Paragraph JJ 11 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant repeats, reiterates and ~ realleges its answers of Paragraphs ~ ~ ~ 1 through 10 with the same ~ force and effect as if hereinafter I ~ set forth at~ length. 5. Defendant ~ denies the allegations ~ ~ contained in Paragraph ~ ~ ~ 12, HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION & DOUKAS, LLP Attomeys at Law ~ 6. With respect to Paragraph~ I13 of the Amended Complaint, ~ Defendant ~ repeats, reiterates~ andre- suite 1100 alleges its answers ofparagraphs 1 through 12, with the same force and effect as hereinafter ~ ~ set forth at length. New York,NY - - ~ I-. - ~ ~ I ~.I I I- ~.I I.l... ll-i ~ -I tell. I E

3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :28 AM INDEX /2015 INDEX /2015 F I LED : NEW fork COUNTY CL ERK 02 / 24 / : 3 1 PM) RECEIVED : 02/24/2C17 12/28/2017 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All claims are time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The causes of action pleaded in the Verified Complaint have not been maintained in a timely fashion, and Plaintiff(s) have neglected the same and should be barred by the doctrine of laches. FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Verified Complaint fails to state any cause of action against Defendant upon which relief can be 1 granted. FOR A FOURTH AFFlRMATIVE DEFENSE Insofar as the Verified Complaint may allege a cause of action, the amount of damages recoverable thereon must be diminished by reason of the culpable attributable to Plaintiff(s), including contributory negligence and assumption of risk. FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IfPlaintiff should prove that he sustained injuries and damages as alleged, such injuries and damages resulted from acts or omissions on the part of third parties over whom Defendant had no control or right of control. FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE While Defendant denies the allegations ofplaintiff with respect tonegligence, statutory liability, strict liability, injury and damages, to the extent that Plaintiff maybe able to prove the same, they were the result of intervening and/or interceding acts of superseding negligence on the part of third parties over which Defendant has no control or right of control. HOAG LAND, LONGO, FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Upon information and belief, Plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the & DOUKAS, LLP Attomeys atlaw damages alleged in the Amended Complaint. Suite 1100 New York, NY J

4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :28 AM INDEX /2015 INDEX /2 015 F I LED : NEW ORK COUNTY CLERK 02 / 24 / : 3 1 P M RECEIVED RECEIVED : : 02/24/2(17 12/28/2017 FOR A EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Where applicable, Defendant preserves its right to object to personal jurisdiction of Plaintiff over Defendant. FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Where applicable, Defendant preserves its right to assert that this action otherwise does not belong in this court by reason of forum non conveniens or any other lack of factual basis to proceed in this court or otherwise give this court jurisdiction over this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment dismissingplaintiffs Amended Complaint with costs and disbursements, and in the event of any judgment over and against Defendant 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 the law regarding apportionment of fault and damages, along with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys fees. COUNTERCLAIM Defendant/ Counterclaimant, SelecTech, Inc., by way of counterclaim against plaintiff, Lanes Floor Coverings and Interiors, states: The Stamet Worldwide Commercial Flooring Partnership (hereafter Starnet) is a worldwide network of independent flooring contractors. See, 2. Starnet maintains an extensive membership list which includes the addresses of all members. 3. Lanes utilized Starnets extensive membership list to send s concerning SelecTech to a large number of flooring professionals. i 4. These s disparaged and falsely represented Lanes products and services and discouraged the flooring community from doing business with SelecTech. 5. As the result of Lanes improper and untruthful communications, SelecTech has suffered DOUKAS, LL P Attomeys at Law irreparable damage to its reputation in the flooring trade and the loss of significant present and prospective suite 1100 business opportunities. New York, NY

5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :28 AM INDEX /2015 INDEX /2015 F I LED : NEW YORK COUNTY CL ERK 02 / 24 / 2017 O 3 : 3 1 Pl$ 966 RECEIVED : 02/24/2(17 12/28/2017 FIRST COUNT Tortious Interference with Business Relationships 6. SelecTech repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Facts portion of its Counterclaim and incorporates same as if set forth at length herein. 7. With deliberate intent to persuade flooring professional cease their business relationships with SelecTech, Lanes sent s to large numbers of Starnet members which painted SelecTech in a highly negative light and which directly urged Starnet members not to do business with SelecTech. 8. As a result of the aforesaid actions, SelecTech Starnet members have purchased no Selectech products resulting in lost revenue and thereby sustained damages. SECOND COUNT Tortions Interference with Prospective Business Relationships 9. SelecTech repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Counterclaim and incorporates same as if set forth at length herein. ==-=-=-::---=- 10. With deliberate intent to persuade flooring pmfesises to not enter into business relationships with SelecTech, Lanes sent s to large numbers of Starnet members which painted SelecTech in a highly negative light and which urged Starnet members not to do business with Selec Tech. 11. As a result of the aforesaid actions, SelecTech Starnet members have purchased no Selectech products resulting in lost revenue and thereby sustained damages. THIRD COUNT Negligent interference with prospective business relationships 12. Selectech repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 of the Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein. 13. With intent to persuade flooring professional to not enter into business relationships with A LONGO, MOpjg4 MORAN,NLST Selectech, Lanes negligently sent s to large numbers of Starnet members which painted Selectech in a & DOUKAS, LLP Attomeys at Law highly negative light and which urged Starnet members not to do business with Selectech. suite As a result of the aforesaid actions, SelecTech Starnet members have purchased no Selectech New York, NY products resulting in lost revenue and thereby sustained damages. ).

6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :28 AM INDEX /2015 F INDEX ILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CL ERK 02 / 24 / : /2015 PM RECEIVED RECEIVED : : 02/24/2 12/28/2017 ;t7 feíñëèbneú$eedeehä(empef ft0r,,f4ttrrrl j(i f intt I an ts Egqq äümgynyugggpjg@ dtrrtt.ibies.: t) 6(13/1.OPl (1)tJ..tt]!lj tl tllctt&le IC)ttb le CNfQuCILJ5)L eotfgeltljstltll, I~.l ztic1(le)llal> llot)uj)il rt(rrlrij: C»jÃc jc lit GldC IItal )It) I tllltlttxpdgfaii ltilitl tiiil Il))1,,daNc1geh.lggel ii re toj~, lteg, 9glll lt w1t toglleg cr: wpc.roc,s iperl»t,s r.c) r.r)sl» fictree a)) rl fr) ll) trizc.jul i trirt.sia v<1:.,,uc.f riel:.t)itall,pi i,c) Ilic,ir,.Irtcj]1tlrLliir,; IIer et)tit Itlrtl) el.;iej tej Leil.jS: te!i js tl)ie Iltfe:i:osrt,sbcri eatiit. si)all; j; cloen);,c(jttrt<i1) cteen) q(jilil(ji) jc:.;;err)di!at, jeglncl i tt4l, l3ai.li3. )AI.LL). Net Nel,» Ygrj, YVr], 4Y KIY :1IJ.t)rurlry,; :Fet)J)lory, 7=; 20.l)7 2U.l7 ju glity IIII, ~»;f~es~ HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP Attorneys for Defendant, SelecTech, Inc., Suite 1000 New ork, w Y rk I 1 f JAS N IMER, Esq. 1 ),I l; HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST DOUKAS, LLP Attomeys at Law Suite 1100 New York. NY l,

7 INDEX / /2015 INDEX p!3, 10:28 ~-3 j,.pm FILED:NEW NEW- YORK YORKCOUNTY COUNTYCLERK CLERKp 2 12/28/2017 AM 24 2 p yp FXLED: RECEIVED02/24/2017! :02/24/ /28/2017 RECEIVED : SUPERIOR COURT OF THE OF NEW YORK,. OF NEW YORK, COUNTY Index No /2015 THIS DOCUMENT LANES STATE STATE FLOOR.: Year 2017 TO:. TO: RELATES COVERINGS Ii,,lli;;*i.,..., I;; :.,, i i i»;j~i., :;.;,I; - :.... & INTERIORS,..,:,.:.!I:,,: i,!,i I i INC., Plaintiff(s), 1. vs. SELEC,SELEC TECH, et al. INC., * Defendant(s), SELEC INC.S MORAN, DUNST for Defendant, Attorney(s) AMENDED ANSWER & DOUKAS, LLP Selec Tech Pursuant to 2 NYCRR the undersigned, , certifies State, and belief that, upon information annexed document are not frivolous. 17, 2017 February of a copy.:.:,.,:;:.: of the No,.:48WaII & Tel. No.:48 Wall SUite Street, I Suite 1100.,.. :::::.::;,::..,;.,: New York, NY ::New...: ;:::::;:,::,:::::,::.::.:,:;;...:;,.,:.;:;:;!l; :.,:,. :::-,:.; ::.:: (732) ::.-, -,,,,;:I!, mitted o practice in the pourts of New York le ing ty, t e contentions contained iri the.ä an attorney and reason Signature Print Service Dated: COUNTERCLAIM Inc. Office Office Address Dated: AND! LONGO, LONGO, HOAGLAND, TECH.. within Signer NameJASON mitted.::-::;:::a mitted. is hereby S. REIMER, -:::;:::.;.:: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE O that the NOTICs OF sntry... entered pf ssÿlesuîb. ESQ.-, ESO.,.,, *, ~..i;., :r;;jj! y(s) for Defendant within is a (certified) true copy of a in the office of the clerk of the within named Court on of which Hon. at I-...:, that an Order Attorne.~ l...,,: ; I ESQ. on the within is a true copy will be presented of the within Court,, one of the judges -:.:, at for for settlement to to the ;I;I tl, Dated: Attorney(s) To: Attorney(s) for.. Office Address & Tel. No.: for.i