Professional Documents
Culture Documents
807030/2016
RACHEL KUECHLE,
Plaintiff,
ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIM
vs.
Index No. 807030/2016
EVANDER KANE,
Defendant.
1 of 8
not
heretofore
specifically
admitted,
denied
or
otherwise
controverted.
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
THE DEFENDANT, EVANDER KANE, ALLEGES:
7. The plaintiff's culpable conduct caused or contributed to the accident,
injuries and/or damages alleged in the Complaint and plaintiff's potential
recovery in this action should be diminished in proportion to the culpable
conduct attributable to plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
THE DEFENDANT, EVANDER KANE, ALLEGES:
8. That if this answering defendant is found liable to plaintiff by virtue of
the matters alleged in the Complaint, such liability will be based on the
culpability of other persons and non-parties which culpability will be less than
51% respectively of the total culpability of all persons liable. That in such
event, this answering defendant will claim the benefit of the limited liability
provisions of CPLR ~ 1601.
AS AND FORA THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
THE DEFENDANT, EVANDER KANE, ALLEGES:
9. That if this answering defendant is found liable along with other
persons and non-parties, it is requested that the relative culpability of the tortfeasors be determined and a judgment order be granted in accordance with
that determination.
2
2 of 8
That any contact between the plaintiff and the defendant was
whole or in part, the recovery must be denied since, upon information and
belief, plaintiff failed to take reasonable precautions for her own safety and
otherwise failed to take reasonable actions to mitigate or minimize her alleged
damages.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
THE DEFENDANT, EVANDER KANE, ALLEGES:
13.
3
3 of 8
defendant named herein, without any reasonable basis in law or fact to believe
such action could result in a settlement or judgment favorable to the plaintiff
and therefore defendant requests that this Court award defendant his costs,
disbursements and reasonable attorneys'fees pursuant to CPLR ~8303(a).
AS AND FOR A COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFF, RACHEL KUECHLE, THE DEFENDANT,
EVANDER KANE, ALLEGES:
16.
and filed July 1, 2016, the plaintiff herein, RACHEL KUECHLE, falsely and
maliciously alleged and published certain false and defamatory statements
wherein it was asserted that the defendant acted in an illegal, criminal, willful,
wanton, reckless and outrageous manner and violated all norms of decency
and conduct. The particular false and defamatory statements were:
"While in the Defendant's hotel room on December 27, 2015, the
Defendant, EVANDER KANE, inflicted a battery upon the
Plaintiff, RACHEL KUECHLE."
"The physical battery inflicted upon the Plaintiff, RACHEL
KUECHLE,
by
the
Defendant,
EVANDER
KANE,
was
unconsented to."
"The physical battery inflicted upon the Plaintiff, RACHEL
KUECHLE, by the Defendant, EVANDER KANE, was violent, and
offensive in nature."
"As a direct and proximate result of the unwanted, unconsented
to, violent, and offensive in nature physical battery inflicted upon
0
4 of 8
and/or
recklessly
engaged
in
extreme
and
5
5 of 8
endangering
the
Plaintiff's
bleeding requiring
multiple
surgeries and
blood
D
6 of 8
17.
defendant and associated him with illegal, criminal, and immoral conduct.
18.
Upon information and belief, the aforesaid statements are false and
by the plaintiff, RACHEL KUECHLE, with actual malice and with intent to
injure and damage the defendant, EVANDER KANE, in his professional
standing and in his reputation and good name in the community.
20.
by the plaintiff, RACHEL KUECHLE, in bad faith, without any basis in fact, and
for the sole purpose of defaming the defendant, EVANDER KANE.
21.
action against the defendant, EVANDER KANE, is a sham, and was brought for
the sole purpose of defaming defendant.
22.
EVANDER KANE, by the plaintiff, RACHEL KUECHLE, the defendant has, upon
information and belief, been subjected to great indignity and humiliation, and
was injured in his good name and reputation in the community, all to his
damage in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts
which would otherwise have jurisdiction.
23.
7
7 of 8
have judgment on
his
affirmative
8 of 8