FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- against -
`
`
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`- -------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`This Document Relates To:
`
`:
`
`
`: Index No. 190011/2024
`DENNIS KILKENNY and PATRICIA KILKENNY,
`:
`
`
`:
`
`
`:
`
`
`:
` VERIFIED ANSWER
`
`:
`
`:
`AII ACQUISITION, LLC, F/K/A AII
`:
` ACQUISITION CORP., F/K/A ATHLONE
`:
` INDUSTRIES, INC., F/K/A HOLLAND
`:
` FURNACE COMPANY; et al.,
`:
`
`:
` Defendants.
`:
`
`:
`-- ------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`Defendant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a AlliedSignal, Inc., as
`
`successor-in-interest
`
`to The Bendix Corporation,
`
`sued herein as HONEYWELL
`
`INTERNATIONAL INC. Successor to: (F/K/A ALLIED SIGNAL) AS SUCCESSOR IN
`
`INTEREST TO BENDIX CORPORATION (“Honeywell”), by its attorneys, Husch Blackwell
`
`LLP, for its Verified Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Complaint”), states upon information and
`
`belief as follows:
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph “1” of the Complaint and refers all questions of law
`
`to this honorable Court.
`
`2.
`
`Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraph “2” of the Complaint
`
`insofar as they are directed to Honeywell and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`Honeywell admits that it did conduct business in this state from time to time; however, Honeywell
`
`denies that such business is in any way related to the allegations contained in this paragraph and
`
`throughout the Complaint.
`
`1 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`
`
`allegations contained in paragraph “2” of the Complaint to the extent that such allegations relate
`
`to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`4.
`
` Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraphs “3” through “9” of the
`
`Complaint insofar as they are directed to Honeywell and refers all questions of law to this
`
`honorable Court.
`
`5.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations contained in paragraphs “3” through “9” of the Complaint to the extent that such
`
`allegations relate to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Honeywell repeats and reiterates each and every response hereinbefore made with
`
`6.
`
`the same force and effect as though the same were set forth at length herein.
`
`7.
`
`Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraphs “10” through “35” of the
`
`Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed towards Honeywell and refers all
`
`questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`8.
`
` Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs “10” through “35” of the Complaint to the extent
`
`that such allegations relate to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`
`
`Honeywell denies all claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Honeywell repeats and reiterates each and every response hereinbefore made with
`
`the same force and effect as though the same were set forth at length herein.
`
`11.
`
`Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraphs “36” through “39” of the
`
`Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed towards Honeywell and refers all
`
`questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`
`
`2
`
`2 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs “36” through “39” of the Complaint to the extent
`
`that such allegations relate to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`13.
`
`Honeywell denies all claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`14.
`
`
` Honeywell repeats and reiterates each and every response hereinbefore made with
`
`the same force and effect as though the same were set forth at length herein.
`
`15.
`
`Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraphs “40” and “41” of the
`
`Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed towards Honeywell and refers all
`
`questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`16.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs “40” and “41” of the Complaint to the extent that
`
`such allegations relate to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Honeywell denies all claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Honeywell repeats and reiterates each and every response hereinbefore made with
`
`the same force and effect as though the same were set forth at length herein in response to
`
`paragraph “42” of the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraphs “43” through “68” of the
`
`Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed towards Honeywell and refers all
`
`questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`20.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs “43” through “68” of the Complaint to the extent
`
`that such allegations relate to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`21.
`
`Honeywell denies all claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`
`
`3
`
`3 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Honeywell repeats and reiterates each and every response hereinbefore made with
`
`22.
`
`the same force and effect as though the same were set forth at length herein in response to
`
`paragraph “69” of the Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs “70” through “82” of the Complaint, as they relate
`
`to other defendants, and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court. Insofar as the
`
`allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to Honeywell, they are denied.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Honeywell denies all claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Honeywell repeats and reiterates each and every response hereinbefore made with
`
`the same force and effect as though the same were set forth at length herein in response to
`
`paragraph “83” of the Complaint.
`
`26.
`
`Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraphs “84” through “98” of the
`
`Complaint to the extent that such allegations are directed towards Honeywell and refers all
`
`questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`27.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs “84” through “98” of the Complaint to the extent
`
`that such allegations relate to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Honeywell denies all claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`AS TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Honeywell repeats and reiterates each and every response hereinbefore made with
`
`the same force and effect as though the same were set forth at length herein.
`
`
`
`4
`
`4 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraph “99” of the Complaint to
`
`
`
`the extent that such allegations are directed towards Honeywell and refers all questions of law to
`
`this honorable Court.
`
`31.
`
`Honeywell denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph “99” of the Complaint to the extent that such
`
`allegations relate to other parties and refers all questions of law to this honorable Court.
`
`32.
`
`Honeywell denies all claims for compensatory damages.
`
`
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff failed to properly serve Honeywell with the Summons and the Complaint and the
`
`Court lacks jurisdiction herein.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over this answering Defendant.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Complaint is defective as a matter of law.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The delay of the plaintiff in commencing suit is inexcusable and has resulted in prejudice
`
`to Honeywell, and the equitable doctrine of laches bars their claims.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`5
`
`5 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff failed to bring the Complaint in the appropriate venue.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Pursuant to General Obligations Law Section 15-108, Honeywell is entitled to set-off.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Any recovery by plaintiffs herein must be reduced by collateral source payments pursuant
`
`to N.Y. CPLR 4545.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`If the answering Defendant is found liable, such liability is less than or equal to 50% of the
`
`total liability of all persons who may be found liable, and therefore, this answering Defendant’s
`
`liability shall be limited to its equitable share pursuant to N.Y. CPLR Section 1601.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`If the causes of action, based upon statutory liability as pleaded in the Complaint, are based
`
`upon expressed or implied warranties and/or representations, then the alleged breaches thereto, as
`
`against this answering Defendant, are legally insufficient by reason of their failure to allege privity
`
`of contract between the plaintiff and this answering Defendant.
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant gave, made or extended no warranties, whether express or
`
`implied, upon which plaintiff had a right to rely.
`
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The answering Defendant breached no warranties, whether express or implied.
`
`FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Statute of Limitations is a complete and total bar as to any and all warranties allegedly
`
`presented or made in connection with the alleged sale, manufacture, distribution, supply, testing,
`
`design, packaging or delivery of the asbestos product(s) to which Plaintiffs’ allegedly came into
`
`contact.
`
`
`
`6
`
`6 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`If the causes of action based upon statutory liability are founded upon any oral warranties
`
`or undertakings on the part of the answering Defendant upon which the plaintiff might rely, they
`
`are inadmissible and unavailable pursuant to the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.
`
`SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That insofar as the Complaint and each cause of action of each plaintiff considered
`
`separately alleges a cause of action occurring on or after September 1, 1975 to recover damages
`
`for personal injuries, the amount of damages recoverable thereon must be diminished by the
`
`plaintiffs’ comparative negligence, in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the
`
`plaintiff bears upon the culpable conduct which caused the damages.
`
`EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That insofar as the causes of action herein considered separately occurred before
`
`September 1, 1975, such causes of action are barred by reason of the contributory negligence of
`
`the plaintiff.
`
`NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That plaintiff was barred from any recovery against this answering Defendant by the
`
`doctrine of assumption of the risk.
`
`TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That plaintiff contributed to the alleged illness, either in whole or part, by the use of other
`
`substances, products, medications and/or drugs.
`
`TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries and
`
`disabilities alleged in the Complaint.
`
`TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`7
`
`7 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`In the event that plaintiff was employed by this answering Defendant, such Plaintiffs’ sole
`
`remedy is under the Workers’ Compensation Law and said plaintiff cannot recover from this
`
`Defendant in this action.
`
`TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That the Plaintiffs’ employer(s) were sophisticated purchasers and/or users of the products
`
`referred to in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and upon whom devolved all responsibility for such use.
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That the matters that are the subject of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint are attributable to third
`
`parties over whom this answering Defendant had neither control nor right of control.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That if plaintiff should prove that deceased sustained injuries and damages as alleged, such
`
`injuries and damages resulted from acts or omissions on the part of third parties, including
`
`deceased Plaintiffs’ employer(s), over whom this Defendant had neither control nor right of control
`
`and for whose acts or omissions this answering Defendant is not liable.
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This answering Defendant denies the allegations of the plaintiffs with respect to
`
`negligence, statutory liability, strict liability, injury and damages, and to the extent that plaintiff
`
`may be able to prove the same, they were the result of intervening and/or interceding acts of
`
`superseding negligence or other conduct on the part of parties over which this Defendant has
`
`neither control nor right of control.
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This answering Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer and to assert additional
`
`cross claims and/or otherwise counterclaims as to any party named herein, who may have, is or
`
`will be declared bankrupt or otherwise files a petition under the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to
`
`
`
`8
`
`8 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Article 16 of the N.Y. CPLR and to the decision of Justice Helen E. Freedman, previous presiding
`
`judge for the New York City Asbestos Litigation (October 28, 2002).
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because of plaintiffs’ failure to join necessary and
`
`indispensable parties.
`
`TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That during the periods of exposure alleged in the Complaint by the plaintiff, this
`
`answering Defendant denies specifically that it mined, processed, manufactured, designed, sold,
`
`delivered, supplied, developed, tested, fashioned, packaged, distributed and/or otherwise placed in
`
`the stream of commerce a substantial and/or any percentage of the asbestos products to which
`
`plaintiffs allegedly were caused to come into contact and were allegedly caused to breathe, inhale
`
`and/or digest, and which allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and resulting damages. In the event
`
`it should be proved at the time of trial that all defendants are subject to market share liability, then
`
`this Defendant’s share of such liability would be of such a de minimis amount as to make its
`
`contribution for damages negligible, and this answering Defendant will be entitled to contribution
`
`either in whole or part from the other answering Defendants.
`
`THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That no enterprise liability lies against this answering Defendant herein.
`
`THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That at all times during the conduct of the corporate operations, the agents, servants and/or
`
`employees of this answering Defendant, utilized proper methods of manufacture of products in
`
`conformity with the state of the art and the knowledge and research of the scientific community.
`
`To the extent that this answering Defendant conformed to the scientific knowledge and research
`
`data available throughout the industry in which it was engaged, and the scientific community, this
`
`
`
`9
`
`9 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant has fulfilled its obligations, if any, herein, and Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred, in
`
`whole or part.
`
`THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That this answering Defendant conformed to the scientific knowledge and data available
`
`in the industry in which it was engaged, and fulfilled its obligations, if any, and its activities and
`
`undertakings, if any, were conducted in a reasonable fashion, without recklessness, malice or
`
`wantonness, and plaintiff may not recover herein any exemplary or punitive damages against this
`
`Defendant.
`
`THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That insofar as plaintiff alleges as against this answering Defendant, any willful and
`
`wanton misconduct, and that this Defendant allegedly knowingly and intentionally sold a product
`
`or products that it knew to be unreasonably dangerous, all of which this Defendant denies, any
`
`such cause of action or causes of action accrued more than one year prior to the commencement
`
`of this lawsuit and are time-barred.
`
`THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That 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 avoidable, unsafe, inherently
`
`dangerous, or hazardous character or nature of products containing asbestos when used in the
`
`manner and purpose described by the plaintiff and, therefore, there was no duty for this answering
`
`Defendant to know of any such character or nature or to warn plaintiff or others similarly situated.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that this answering Defendant conformed to the scientific knowledge and
`
`research data available throughout the industry and scientific community, Honeywell has fulfilled
`
`its obligations, if any, herein, and Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred, in whole or in part.
`
`THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`10
`
`10 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`That plaintiff was warned of the risk of exposure to use of asbestos-containing materials.
`
`THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That any exposure that plaintiff claims to this answering Defendant’s products or
`
`equipment, which alleged exposure is denied, was so minimal as to be insufficient to establish a
`
`reasonable degree of probability that said products or equipment caused the injuries, illnesses and
`
`damages alleged by the plaintiffs in the Complaint.
`
`THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That while denying the allegations of the plaintiff with respect to liability, to the extent that
`
`the plaintiff is able to prove negligence or other improper conduct in accordance with the
`
`applicable standards of proof, the acts and/or omissions of this answering Defendant were not a
`
`proximate cause of any injuries, illnesses and/or damages to plaintiff.
`
`THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That any claim against this answering Defendant is barred by reason of substantial product
`
`change, alteration and/or modification.
`
`FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted,
`
`inasmuch as plaintiff was unable to identify the manufacturer(s) of the substance allegedly causing
`
`injury, and relief granted would deprive this Defendant of its right to substantive and procedural
`
`due process of law and equal protection under the law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of
`
`the Constitution of the United States.
`
`FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That this answering Defendant denies that the asbestos-containing products alleged in
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint are products within the meaning and scope of the Restatement of Torts,
`
`Section 402A and as such, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action in strict liability.
`
`FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`11
`
`11 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`That the plaintiff, his co-workers and employees misused, mistreated and misapplied the
`
`product(s) designated as asbestos materials as alleged in the Complaint. That if the Court finds
`
`after trial that any misuse, mistreatment and/or misapplication of the said product(s) caused and/or
`
`contributed to the alleged injuries or damages to the plaintiffs, then, in that event, this answering
`
`Defendant prays that the amount of damages which might be recoverable shall be diminished in
`
`the proportion which the misuse, abuse, mistreatment and/or misapplication attributed to the
`
`plaintiff and/or his co-workers and/or employees bears to the conduct which caused the alleged
`
`injuries or damages.
`
`FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That the causes of action asserted herein by the plaintiff, who are unable to identify the
`
`manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product(s), fail to state a cause of action upon which
`
`relief can be granted, in that plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would
`
`constitute a taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. Such a taking
`
`would contravene this answering Defendant’s constitutional rights as preserved for it by the
`
`Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`
`FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That exposure to asbestos fibers attributable to product(s) allegedly processed,
`
`manufactured, produced, constructed, designed, tested, fashioned, packaged, sold, distributed,
`
`delivered, supplied, advertised or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by this answering
`
`Defendant, is so minimal so as to be insufficient to establish to a reasonable degree of probability
`
`that said product(s) are capable of causing injury or damages and must be speculative as a matter
`
`of law.
`
`FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`As a result of the acts, conduct and omissions of Plaintiffs’ agents, the allegations set forth
`
`in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of estoppel and waiver.
`
`
`
`12
`
`12 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That if it should be proved at the time of trial that any of the answering Defendant’s
`
`product(s) were furnished to deceased Plaintiffs’ employer(s) and/or to the United States
`
`Government, and that plaintiff came into contact with said product(s), which this Defendant
`
`specifically denies, then any product(s) processed, manufactured, produced, constructed, designed,
`
`tested, fashioned, packaged, sold, distributed, delivered, supplied, advertised and/or otherwise
`
`placed in the stream of commerce by this Defendant which was or may have been furnished to
`
`deceased Plaintiffs’ employer(s) and/or to the United States Government, and with which deceased
`
`plaintiff alleges he came or may have come into contact was processed, manufactured, produced,
`
`constructed, designed, tested, fashioned, packaged, sold, distributed, delivered, supplied,
`
`advertised and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce in strict conformity to the conditions
`
`specified, or to specifications furnished by the Plaintiffs’ employer(s) and/or the United States
`
`Government.
`
`FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That to the extent that the causes pleaded by the plaintiff herein fail to accord with the
`
`Uniform Commercial Code, including, but not limited to, Section 2-725 thereof, Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint is barred.
`
`FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That to the extent that plaintiff relies on Section 4 of the New York Laws 1986, c. 682 as
`
`grounds for reviving or maintaining the action, said statute(s) is/are unconstitutional and deprive(s)
`
`the answering Defendant of its constitutional rights and is/are wholly void and unenforceable.
`
`FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That to the extent the plaintiff seeks punitive damages against this answering Defendant,
`
`and rely on Section 4 of the New York Laws 1986, c. 682 as grounds for reviving and maintaining
`
`
`
`13
`
`13 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`the action, such damages are improper and are not authorized by law since this statute does not
`
`revive any claims for punitive damages, leaving such claims time-barred in their entirety.
`
`FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That these actions and the causes pleaded by the plaintiff herein are barred by virtue of
`
`Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
`
`FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That to the extent that plaintiff seeks punitive damages against the answering Defendant,
`
`these damages are improper and unwarranted, not authorized by law, and are unconstitutional.
`
`Subjecting this Defendant to multiple trials and the multiple imposition of punitive damages for a
`
`single course of conduct is a violation of both substantive and procedural due process under the
`
`Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.
`
`FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages is barred by the proscription of the Eighth
`
`Amendment to 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 excessive fines.
`
`FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages is barred by the “ex post facto” clause of the
`
`United States Constitution.
`
`FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`That with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim of a duty owed to him, this answering Defendant
`
`denies breaching any duty which it may have owed to the plaintiff.
`
`FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`14
`
`14 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`That all defenses which have been and/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 to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint by this answering Defendant.
`
`FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This answering Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer to assert additional
`
`defenses and/or to supplement, alter or change this answer upon discovery of the specific facts
`
`upon which plaintiffs base his claims for relief, and upon completion of further discovery.
`
`FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This answering Defendant reserves the right to move for a severance of the various
`
`allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`
`CROSS-CLAIMS
`
`ALL OF THE ABOVE-NAMED CO-DEFENDANTS
`
`If the plaintiff sustained damages in the manner alleged in whole or part in the Complaint,
`
`all of which is denied by this answering Defendant herein, such damages were caused entirely by
`
`reason of the active and primary negligence and/or other culpable conduct of the co-defendants
`
`above-named and of third parties who are not parties to this action, with no active or primary
`
`negligence or other culpable conduct on the part of this Defendant contributing thereto.
`
`WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant demands judgment against its co-defendants
`
`and/or third parties not parties to this action for INDEMNIFICATION in full with respect to any
`
`damages, verdict or judgment which any party to this action may recover against this Defendant,
`
`together with costs of suit and attorneys’ fees.
`
`ALL OF THE ABOVE-NAMED CO-DEFENDANTS
`
`If the plaintiff sustained damages in the manner alleged in whole or part in the Complaint,
`
`all of which is denied by the answering Defendant, such damages were caused in whole or part by
`
`
`
`15
`
`15 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`the negligence and/or other culpable conduct of the co-defendants above named and of third parties
`
`who are not parties to this action, with no negligence or culpable conduct on the part of this
`
`Defendant contributing thereto.
`
`WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant is entitled to CONTRIBUTION pursuant to
`
`Article 14 of the New York Civ. L. & R. and to judgment over and against the above-named
`
`defendants and/or third parties who are not parties to this action, who are joint tortfeasors with
`
`respect to any damages, liability and expense on account of Plaintiffs’ demand for judgment, in
`
`the amount of any excess paid by this Defendant over and above its equitable share of the judgment
`
`recovered by the plaintiff determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person
`
`liable to the plaintiffs for contribution.
`
`ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIMS BY CO-DEFENDANTS
`
`The answering Defendant denies any and all cross claims for contribution and/or
`
`indemnification that may be asserted at any time by co-defendants against this Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`16 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a AlliedSignal,
`
`Inc., as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation, sued herein as HONEYWELL
`
`INTERNATIONAL, INC. Successor to: (F/K/A ALLIED SIGNAL) AS SUCCESSOR IN
`
`INTEREST TO BENDIX CORPORATION (“Honeywell”), demands judgment dismissing the
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint with costs and disbursements, or in the alternative, awarding Honeywell
`
`judgment which any party to this action may recover against Honeywell on the basis of common
`
`law indemnity, or in the alternative, awarding Honeywell judgment over and against the defendants
`
`above named in the amount of any excess paid by Honeywell over and above its equitable share
`
`of the judgment recovered by the plaintiff all determined in accordance with the relative culpability
`
`of each party liable to the Plaintiffs for contribution; and for such other and further relief as this
`
`Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: Pittsford, New York
`
`February 26, 2024
`
`
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`
`
`By:/s/ Kevin Turbert
`Kevin Turbert, Esq.
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Honeywell International, Inc.
` 68 South Service Road
` Suite 100
` Melville, NY 11747
` 631-433-8960
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TO: Mark Bibro, Esq.
`THE EARLY LAW FIRM, LLC
`Attorneys for Plaintiff(s)
`360 Lexington Avenue, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10017
`212.986.2233
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`17 of 18
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:19 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 190011/2024
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`ss:
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
`
`Kevin Turbert, an attorney admitted to the Practice of Law in the State of New York,
`
`affirms that he is the attorney for the Defendant, Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a AlliedSignal,
`Inc., as successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corporation, in the within action, and that he is
`counsel to the firm of Husch Blackwell LLP, with offices located at 68 South Service Road,
`Suite 100, Melville, NY 11747; that he has read the contents of the foregoing ANSWER to
`Verified Complaint and that the same is true to the knowledge of affirmant based upo