Robert Novak v. APD List Members
(PetsWarehouse Lawsuit)
ANSWER and COUNTERCLAIM
of Active Window Products, Inc.
|
|
|
|
Defendants ACTIVE WINDOW PRODUCTIONS, INC. and MARK ROSENSTEIN, by their attorneys, Robert L. Folks & Associates, LLP, respectfully answer the complaitn of Robert Novak d/b/a PetsWarehouse.com as follows: 1. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 1. 2. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the trust of the averment in paragraph 2. 3. Paragraph 3 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is requred, however defendants deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the trust of the averment in paragraph 3. 4. Admit the allegations of paragraph 4. 5. Admit the allegations of paragraph 5. 6. Admit the allegatoins of paragraph 6, except state that Mr. Rosenstein does not edit or control the contents of the aquatic plants archive. 7. Deny the allegatoins of paragraph 7. 8. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 8. 9. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the trust of the averment in paragraph 9. 10. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 10. 11. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 11. 12. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 12. 13. Admit the allegations of paragraph 13. 14. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 14. 15. Admit the allegations of paragraph 15. 16. Admit the allegations of paragraph 16. 17. Admit the allegations of paragraph 17. 18. Admit the allegations of paragraph 18. 19. Deny the allegations of paragraph 19. 20. Admit the allegations of paragraph 20. 21. Admit the allegations of paragraph 21. 22. Admit the allegations of paragraph 22. 23. Admit the allegations of paragraph 23. 24. Admit the allegations of paragraph 24. 25. admit the allegations of paragraph 25. 26. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 26. 27. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 27. 28. Admit the allegations of paragraph 28. 29. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 29. 30. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 30. 31. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 31. 32. Deny the allegations of paragraph 32. 33. Deny the allegations of paragraph 33. 34. Deny the allegations of paragraph 34. 35. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 35. 36. Deny the allegations of paragraph 36. 37. Deny to the extent denied in prior paragraphs. 38. Deny the allegations of paragraph 38. 39. Deny the allegations of paragraph 39. 40. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 40. 41. Deny the allegations of paragraph 41. 42. Deny the allegations of paragraph 42. 43. Deny the allegatoins of paragraph 43. 44. Deny to extent denied in prior paragraphs. 45. Deny the allegatoins of paragraph 45. 46. Deny information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraph 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Deny the allegations in paragraph 51. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 52. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against ACTIVE WINDOW PRODUCTIONS, INC. and MARK ROSENSTEIN. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 53. The statements complained of wehre not uttered or in any way by the defendants ACTIVE WINDOW PRODUCTIONS, INC. or MARK ROSENSTEIN nor did they reserve any editorial control of the contents thereof. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 54. Upon information and belief, the statements compalined of are true. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 55. That the statements compalined of were an expression of opinion protected by the first amendment of the constitution. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 56. Upon information and belief, the plaintiff sustained no harm as a result of the complained of statements. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 57. Upon information and belief the statements complained of are absolutely or qualifiedly priviledged. FIRST COUNTERCLAIM 58. Upon information and belief the instant suit was brought to harass and intimidate the defendants so as to prevent them from relaying anecdotal evidence and voicing legitimate complaints about plaintiff's goods and services in violation of the New York Civil Rights Law. 59. That as a result of the violation by the plaintiffs, the defendants ACTIVE WINDOW PRODUCTSIONS, INC. and MARK ROSENSTEIN have been damaged by incurring counsel fees and in other amounts to be determined at trial. WHEREFORE, your defedant demands that the complaint be dismissed and judgment be rendered on behalf of the defendants ACTIVE WINDOW PRODUCTSIONS, INC. and MARK ROSENSTEIN. Dated: July 17, 2001 Robert L. Folks (RLF8773) |
For more information about any aspect of this lawsuit, please contact:
John R. Benn, 104 West Third Street, Sheffield, AL 35660
Phone: 256-386-7685 or 256-366-4177 | FAX: 256-386-7615
Email: jbenn@jblaw.org