Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-2030 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA UBENNLAWFIAM FRANCINE FEINERMAN, Plaintiff LEON FEINERMAN, V. KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Plaintiff Defendant . NO. 0 7 - ?LS3a ?Lu: CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania (249-3166) YORK, PA 17405-5185 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I '1JBENNLAWFIRM FRANCINE FEINERMAN, Plaintiff & LEON FEINERMAN, Plaintiff V. KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Defendant NO. 6>7-42636 elvc? CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, by and through her attorney, John J. Noone, Jr., Esquire of BENN LAW FIRM, and makes the within Complaint against the Defendants, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, LTD, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, is an adult individual currently residing at 2941 Green Street, Harrisburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17110. 2. Defendant, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, LTD., (hereinafter "KPFF") is a Pennsylvania Corporation with registered corporate address at 5340 Jonestown Road, Harrisburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17112. 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant, KPFF, was the owner and had exclusive control of the property known as Karns Foods (hereinafter "premises"), and located at 1200 Market Street, West Shore Plaza, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, PULENKLAWFIRM Pennsylvania 17043-1200. 4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, was lawfully on said premises as she had just finished her shopping at Defendant, KPFF's store. 5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, KPFF, who had exclusive control of said Premises, had allowed a greasy and wet substance (hereinafter "substance") to remain on the floor near the exit door to the premises. 6. The Defendant, KPFF, had notice of the presence of such substance. 7. On or about June 21, 2006, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, while exiting the Defendant, KPFF's premises slipped on the substance causing the Plaintiff to slip and fall to the floor causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff, as more particularly set forth herein. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE FRANCINE FEINERMAN v. KPFF 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 9. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, believes and therefore avers, that Defendant was in ownership, possession, management and control of YORK, PA 17405-5185 the premises and, also was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the premises. I %I-BENNLAWFIRM 10. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In allowing a substance on the floor near the exit at the premises thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; b. In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said premises which would have revealed the existence of the substance, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant, KPFF, knew or should have known of it; c. In failing to ensure the floor of the premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the premises; d. In failing to maintain the floor of said premises in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent a patron from slipping and falling on the premises. 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 e. Failing to place a warning sign in the area to notify Plaintiff and others of the dangerous condition on the premises. %JIB E N N LA W F I R M 11. Defendant, KPFF, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was a substance on the floor in the area where Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, fell. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, sustained serious injuries, including, but not limited to injuries to both her knees and a compression fracture to her left tibia. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Francine Feinerman, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. I URENNLAWFIRM 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 17. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 18. Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman, seeks damages from Defendant, KPFF, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and demands a trial by jury. COUNT H - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM LEON FEINERMAN V. KPFF 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 I., I UBENNLAWFIRM 19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated herein by reference hereto as fully as though the same were set forth at length. 20. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Francine and Leon Feinerman, were lawfully married as husband and wife. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, Plaintiff, Leon Feinerman, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Francine Feinerman, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, KPFF, the Plaintiff, Leon Feinerman, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Leon Feinerman, seeks damages from the Defendant, 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 KPFF, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of York County, exclusive of interest and costs. BENNLAWFIRM J R., QUIRE BY W2047 103-107 E Market Street York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 YORK, PA 17405-5185 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I UOENNLAWFIRM FRANCINE FEINERMAN, Plaintiff LEON FEINERMAN, Plaintiff V. KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Defendant NO. CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION We, Francine Feinerman and Leon Feinerman, being duly sworn according to law 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 verify that the statements contained in the foregoing "Complaint" are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. DATE: s al?,67 DATE: ,; 0 -PL On, zt ?J r- c? c-' N C:D c-..a ~c? co CD T1 -? 1 r 7 r: I OV) To: Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. THECHAI;)1YetLl FICESj?PI BY:? Michael J. Diamond, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, Ltd. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW FRANCINE FEINERMAN and LEON FEINERAMAN, Plaintiffs VS. No.: 07-2030 KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Defendant. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 2. Denied, Karns Prime and Fancy Foods, Ltd. is a Pennsylvania Corporation with a principal place of business of 675 Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, Karns Prime and Fancy Foods, Ltd. is a Pennsylvania Corporation with a principal place of business of 675 Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050, and Karns Prime and Fancy Foods, Ltd. operated a store at 1200 Market Street, West Shore Plaza, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17043. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, to which a responsive pleading need not be made. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law, to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. It is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. COUNT 1 8. Defendant incorporates by reference their answers and defenses submitted in response to paragraphs 1 through 7 and make them a part hereof as though they were more fully set forth at length herein. 9. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. 10. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph 10 (a) through (e) constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. Defendant denies each and every one of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 (a) through (e), inclusive, with strict proof to the contrary demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if an, y, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. 11. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of tri al. 13. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of tri al. 17. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer, it is denied that the incident more particularly described herein or Plaintiffs resulting injuries, if any, was, or were, due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. COUNT 2 19. Defendant incorporates by reference their answers and defenses submitted in response to paragraphs 1 through 18 and make them a part hereof as though they were more fully set forth at length herein. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 21. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied, strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. To the extent further response is required, the allegation is denied., strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, Ltd., Inc. demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 23. Defendant incorporates by reference their answers and defenses submitted in response to paragraphs I through 22 and make them a part hereof as though they were more fully set forth at length herein. 24. Defendant denies; that it is guilty of any negligence, recklessness or carelessness which was the proximate or direct cause of the alleged damages or injuries sustained by Plaintiffs. 25. Any injuries or damages caused to or sustained by Plaintiffs were proximately or directly caused by the negligence, recklessness or carelessness of person(s) or entity(ies) other than Defendant, and over whom Defendant exercised or had no control, nor the duty to control. 26. Any negligence, recklessness or carelessness found to be attributable to Defendant, which negligence, recklessness or carelessness is denied, is offset by the greater comparative or contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiffs, or of other third persons or entities, both named and unnamed. 27. Defendant breached no duty which may have been owed to Plaintiffs. 28. Plaintiff assumed the risk of her damages, losses or injuries which limits and/or bars all claims asserted by Plaintiffs. 29. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 30. Plaintiff was contributively negligent and such negligence constituted more than fifty (50%) percent of all causes leading to the alleged incident. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed herein. 31. At no time material hereto did Defendant permit to be or remain at the premises a defective, hazardous or unsafe condition causing an unreasonable risk of harm. 32. At all times material hereto, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, Ltd. operated and maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition. 33. It is denied that Plaintiffs' injuries, damages or losses are causally related to the incident more particularly described in the Complaint. 34. The incident more particularly described in Plaintiffs' Complaint was not the foreseeable result of any act or omission on the part of Defendant. 35. At no time material hereto did Defendant have any knowledge, actual or constructive, of any defective, hazardous or dangerous condition existing on or about the premises. 36. At no time material hereto did Defendant cause or contribute to the alleged incident more particularly described in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 37. Defendant reserves the right to interpose such other defenses or objections to the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint as continuing investigation and discovery may disclose. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, Ltd. demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice, and that Defendant be awarded costs incurred in the defense of this action. Respectfully submitted, THE CHARTWELL LAW OFFICES, LLP BY: MICHAEL J. DIAMOND, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, Ltd. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP I.D. No. 69420 Bell Atlantic Tower 1717 Arch Street, Suite 2920 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7006 Fax: (215) 972-7008 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW FRANCINE FEINERMAN and LEON FEINERMAN, Plaintiffs VS. No.: 07-2030 KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer and New Matter was duly served upon the following by first class regular mail, postage pre-paid, on the on the date indicated below: John J. Noone, Jr., Esquire 103-107 E. Market Street York PA 17405-5185 THE CHARTWELL LAW OFFICES, LLP Dated: BY: MICHAEL J. DIAMOND, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Defendant, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods,Ltd. VERIFICATION I, Michael J. Diamond, state that I am counsel and authorized representative of Defendant, Karns Prime & Fancy Foods, Ltd., and verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and, that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MICHAEL J. DIAMOND DATED: 1 ?`1)3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA U-lENNLAWFIRM FRANCINE FEINERMAN, Plaintiff & LEON FEINERMAN, Plaintiff V. KARNS PREHE & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Defendant NO. 07-2030 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, this I& day of May, 2007, comes Plaintiff, Francine Feinerman and Plaintiff Leon Feinerman, by and through their attorney, John J. Noone, Jr. of the BENN LAW FIRM, and files the within Reply to New Matter as follows: 23. No responsive pleading is required. 24. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 25. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to 103-107 E. MARKET sT. which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time U-BENNLAWFIRM of trial. 26. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 27. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 28. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 40 29. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. BENNLAWFIRM 30. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 33. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 34. The allegations set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which a responsive pleading need not be made. By way of further answer after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information EENNLAWFIRM sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained herein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 37. No responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francine and Leon Feinerman, respectfully request that 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant. BY P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 YORK, PA 17405-5185 BENNLAWFIRM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 'BENNLAWFIRM FRANCINE FEINERMAN, Plaintiff LEON FEINERMAN, Plaintiff V. KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Defendant NO. 07-2030 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 We, Francine Feinerman and Leon Feinerman, being duly sworn according to law verify that the statements contained in the foregoing "Complaint" are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. DATE: V?47 DATE:.(, 6 41 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SENNLAWFIRM 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 FRANCINE FEINERMAN, Plaintiff LEON FEINERMAN, Plaintiff V. KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS, LTD. Defendant NO. 07-2030 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John J. Noone, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that on the &A day of May, 2007, I caused to be served "Plaintiffs' Reply to a New Matter" upon the following individual by first class mail, postage pre-paid: Michael J. Diamond, Esquire The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP Bell Atlantic Tower 1717 Arch Street, Siite 2920 Philadelphia, PA 19103 BENNLAWFIRM , JR, BABox , York , PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 T, . CJ SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY QkgE NO: 2007-02030 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND FEINERMAN FRANCINE ET AL VS KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS LTD R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS LTD but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On April 24th , 2007 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: So answe Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Thomas Kli Dep Dauphin County 37.25 Sheriff of C erland County Postage 1.26 75.51 ? S/ a s/6 ? 04/24/2007 BENNE LAW FIRM Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of , A. D. In,..The Curt of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Peninsylvahia- Francine Feinerman et al VS. Karns Prime & Fancy Foods Ltd NO. 07-2030 civil Now, April 13, 2007 I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. s Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, , 20 , at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20 Sheriff of COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA *• a Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin Sheriff's Return No. 0559-T - - -2007 OTHER COUNTY NO. 07 2030 CIVIL AND NOW:April 18, 2007 NOTICE & COMPLAINT KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS LTD • FEINERMAN FRANCINE ET AL Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy vs • KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOODS LTD at 11: 40AM served the within upon by personally handing to DIANE MILLER CUSTOMER SERVICE 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original NOTICE & COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 6001 ALLENSTOWN BLVD HARRISBURG, PA 17112-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 18TH day of APRIL, 2007 So Answers, ? k er ?/ NOTARIAL SEAL MARY JANE SNYDER, Notary Public Highspire, Dauphin County My Commission Expires Sept. 1, 2010 (off Ice of t4le 6*4eriff Sheriff of Dauph?.n County, Pa. By Deputy Sher ff Sheriff's Costs:$37.25 PAID BY COUNTY GM OC7T-15-2007 15:07 From: TIIE CHARTWELL LAW OFFICES, LLP BY: Michael J. Diamond, Esquire Attorney I.D. 69420 1717 Arch S wt, Suite 2920 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-7006 Fax(215)972-7008 To:7178528797 Attorney for Defendants Karns Prime &c Fancy Food, Ltd. P.2/2 FRANCINE FET ERMAN and LEON FEINERAMAN, Plaintiffs VS. No.., 07-2030 KARNS PRIME & FANCY FOOTS, LTD. Defendant. ORDY& TO SEM,L 1SCQM3 , UE AND END TO 711E PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above captioned action, settl4 discontinued and ended. MICHAEL J. DIAMOND, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant Date: 16 A a e Datcc: N ro