The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-7452f SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P. C. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES CORNETT, III Plaintiffs V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and t/d/b/a SISIC CONSTRUCTION, Defendants. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO.: 01-'14SA CiOt Te m CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" directed to Defendants, Sabit Sisic, Individually and t/d/b/a Sisic Construction, 4 Marshall Drive, Apt. No. 3K, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. Respectfully submitted, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney ID No. 66266 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Date: December 11, 2007 44. ? R oJo O W ? W D C:a J ai; rv -c h CSI,L)+ A SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES CORNETT, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and t/d/b/a SISIC CONSTRUCTION, Defendants. : DOCKET NO.: d?- Civil krNt CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: SABIT SISIC, Individually and t/d/b/a SISIC CONSTRUCTION 4 Marshall Drive, Apt. No. 3K Camp Hill, PA 17011 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that James Cornett, III (hereinafter "Plaintiff') has commenced an action against you. DATE: R. P OTHONOTARY ?, SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONTWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT SISIC SABIT but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. WRIT OF SUMMONS , He therefore returns the the within named DEFENDANT SISIC SABIT 4 MARSHALL DRIVE APT NO 3K , NOT FOUND , as to CAMP HILL. PA 17011 DEFENDANT DOES NOT LIVE AT GIVEN ADDRESS. FORWARDING ORDER EXPIRED. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 14.40 Not Found 5.00 Surcharge 10.00 00 1/b f/b; L 4 7. 4 0 So answers: R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN 01/03/2008 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NQ: 2007-07452 P COMMONTWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT qT.qTr rnT\T.qTT?TTrTTnm but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the T.TT')TT C1 TP C+ T TTR11d/ITT C1 NOT FOUND , as to the within named DEFENDANT , SISIC CONSTRUCTION 4 MARSHALL DRIVE APT NO 3K CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DEFENDANT NO LONGER AT GIVEN ADDRESS. FORWARDING ORDER EXPIRED. Sheriff's Costs: So answe Docketing 6.00 Service 00 -? Not Found 5.00 R. Thomas ine Surcharge 10.00 S eriff of Cumberland County .00 vofp /21.00 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN 01/03/2008 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of , A.D. r SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON, P. C. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 PMacdonald-matthesga ssbc-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs JAMES CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 07-7452 V. : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW SABIT SISIC, Individually and t/d/b/a SISIC CONSTRUCTION Defendants PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reissue a Writ of Summons in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" directed to Defendants, Sabit Sisic, Individually and t/d/b/a Sisic Construction at 9 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-2623. Respectfully submitted, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney ID No. 66266 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Date: January 15, 2008 C-rD -? R . k..a 47 C(,4) K 0. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL WILLIAM CLINE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon SISIC SABIT the DEFENDANT , at 1438:00 HOURS, on the 18th day of January , 2008 at 9 TEXACO ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 by handing to MERSIHA SISIC, WIFE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 10.56 Postage .58 Surcharge 10.00 00 39.14 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 01/22/2008 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN By: eputy S eriff A. D. fir. CASE NO: 2007-07452 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL WILLIAM CLINE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon SISIC CONSTRUCTION the DEFENDANT , at 1438:00 HOURS, on the 18th day of January , 2008 at 9 TEXACO ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 MERSIHA SISIC, WIFE by handing to a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 V,2 C 16.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 01/22/2008 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN By: , Deputy Sheriff 0 f A. D. JAMES CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. DOCKET NO: 07-7452 SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a, : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW SISIC CONSTRUCTION Defendant NOT ICR 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, PA 17013 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P. C. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys far Plaintiff JAMES CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, :DOCKET NO: 07-7452 V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a, : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW SISIC CONSTRUCTION Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Cornett, III, (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P.C., and files his Complaint against Defendant, Sabit Sisic, individually and d/b/a SISIC Construction, and in support thereof avers as follows: The Parties Plaintiff is an adult individual currently residing at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. Defendant Sabit Sisic is the sole proprietor of SISIC Construction, having a principal place of business located at 9 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 3. Plaintiff is the owner of real property located 19 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 (hereinafter "the Property") 2 Background 4. On or about August 6, 2003, Defendant entered into a Construction Contract with Bruder Construction Co., (hereinafter "Bruder") for the construction of a home on the Property. On or about June 5, 2004, Defendant submitted a written Proposal to Bruder, whereby proposing to furnish and install the stucco dryvat siding material for the home on the Property. A true and correct copy of the written Proposal from Defendant to Bruder is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 6. Plaintiff, the owner of the Property and the home where the Dryvat stucco was to be installed, was clearly the intended beneficiary of the Proposal. 7. It is believed and therefore averred that, at the time of entering into the Agreement, both Defendant and Bruder understood and intended Plaintiff to be the intended beneficiary of the Agreement. Pursuant to the Proposal, Defendant agreed to install Dryvat stucco on the entire home, including molding designs around the doors and windows. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant used swirl finish Dryvat stucco manufactured by Finestone. 10. Defendant failed to properly install the siding on Plaintiff s home at the Property by failing to follow the product specifications which called for the installation of expansion joints. 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to properly install the siding, the siding on Plaintiff's home is buckling, cracking and bulging away from the structure. 3 12. The estimated cost to repair the defective stucco siding is $135,600. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 12 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth at length herein. 13. In accordance with the terms of the Proposal, Defendant agreed to furnish and install all siding on Plaintiff s home. 14. Defendant failed to properly complete installation of the siding by failing to follow the product specifications. 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to complete the siding in accordance with the Proposal, Plaintiff will be forced to hire a contractor to repair the defective siding and prevent further structural damage. 16. Plaintiff s damage claim exceeds the arbitration limits set forth in Cumberland County Local Rule 1301-1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant in an amount exceeding $135,000, plus costs, together with all such relief as is proper and just. COUNT II - BREACH OF WARRANTY 17. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth at length herein. 18. Pursuant to the terms of the Proposal, Defendant expressly warranted that all work at the Property would be completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. 4 19. Despite Defendant's express assurance that all work would be completed "in a substantial workmanlike manner", Defendant failed to follow the product specifications when installing the siding. 20. Defendant's failure to follow product specifications has resulted in buckling, cracking and bulging siding on Plaintiff s home. 21. Defendant's failure to complete the work in a substantial workmanlike manner constitutes a material breach of the express written warranty provided by Defendant. 22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of warranty, Plaintiff will be forced to hire a contractor to repair the defective siding and prevent further structural damage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant in an amount exceeding $135,000, plus costs, together with all such relief as is proper and just. Dated:,, ° Respectfully submitted, Paig?donald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney ID No. 66266 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorney.for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, James Cornett, III verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. 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 I d am Cornett, III 6 S C r ca 6)z Np O K Wa np CD0 ?O . Ui z n S I S I 4 Marshall qtr PROPOSAL NO.36 Camp Hill. PA. 17011 DATE.JUN.03.2004 Construct on Tel: 717 728 7465 PROPOSAL Proposal submitted to: Name: , D? ?E ?/)1JSTgUC T10A) Work to be performed at Adress, Z 25 $ua-J4 -1E5-M -3'': Adress aI-UC11J DA• ST City,State Ali TsSc??'c?N . P ? -z City,State 1YECHZi-"1 CS 8 tl,<R2' r / - Phone no. ,2 - 4101 -• 7M6 Wehereby proposeto furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of Stucco dryvat. 1.Dryvat stucco (swirl finish, finestone) on whole house (2500-3000 sq feet),Including all moulding designs arounde doors and widows. (on•frontside of the house). Shutters and hinges Is not includ in the price. All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a $ o2q, ?5&) ooh with payments to be as follows: 1 pay 300/6 up front, 2 pay 40% in middel, 3 pay 30%at the end. A - ---2- Signature, Date 9-5 .051 Signature, SIslC-CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL&RESIDENTIAL REMODELING C 0 - TI . r j i Fri SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL MICHAEL BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NnTTrF SISIC SABIT DEFENDANT was served upon the at 1435:00 HOURS, on the 15th day of May , 2008 at 9 TEXACO ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 SABIT SISIC by handing to a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 3/.,?qb 9 9, 18.00 10.00 .00 10.00 .00 38.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day So Answers: R. Thomas Kline z 05/16/2008 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN By. Deput Sheriff of A. D. CASE NO: 2007-07452 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon SISIC CONSTRUCTION the DEFENDANT , at 1435:00 HOURS, on the 15th day of May , 2008 at 9 TEXACO ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 by handing to SABIT SISCI, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 5/?a/08 16.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/16/2008 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN -7 By: // r,/ Deputy ri f A. D. JAMES CORNETT, 111, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 0742' CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: James Cornett, III, Plaintiff, and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, his attorney 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. Respectfully submitted, /1 . F3O rt aar, Esquire I.D. No. 07069 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: June 27, 2008 JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-7542 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant Sabit Sisic ("Sisic"), by his counsel, Albert J. Hahar, and makes this Answer with New Matter to the Complaint filed in the above-referenced action: The Parties 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averment of Paragraph 3, which is therefore deemed denied. Backaround 4. Denied. It is denied that on or about August 6, 2003, Defendant entered into a Construction Contract with Bruder Construction Co. ("Bruder" ). 5. It is admitted that on or about June 5, 2004 Defendant Sisic submitted a proposal to provide certain services on a house then under construction. The authenticity of the document attached as Exhibit A is admitted. 6. Denied. It is denied that Exhibit A was an operative legal agreement between Defendant and Bruder. It is denied that Exhibit A created any third-party beneficiary status in Plaintiff or any other person. Paragraph 6 sets forth a conclusion of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. 7. Denied. It is denied that Defendant performed services pursuant to Exhibit A. It is denied that Defendant intended any person to be an "intended beneficiary" of Exhibit A. 8. Denied as stated. The proposal document, Exhibit A, speaks for itself. Sisic did not install stucco Dryvat material pursuant to Exhibit A. 9. Denied as stated. The averments of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein by reference. Sisic did not install Dryvat stucco pursuant to Exhibit A. To the contrary, in late October 2004, Sisic was requested by Aquilla Blank, on behalf of B. K. Builders, of Shippensburg, PA, to perform the installation of Dryvat stucco at the Lucinda Drive project, under a proposal document dated October 28, 2004 (a copy is attached as Exhibit 1 to this pleading). It is admitted that when Sisic did perform services for Mr. Blank, he did use a swirl finish Dryvat stucco, manufactured by Finestone. 10. Denied. It is denied that Sisic failed to properly install Dryvat stucco on the property. It is denied that Sisic failed to follow product specifications. It is averred that Sisic was instructed by Mr. Blank not to install expansion joints in order to preserve an unbroken finished surface. 11. Denied. It is denied that Sisic failed to properly install Dryvat siding. By way of further response, see the averments of New Matter hereinafter. 2 12. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment of Paragraph 12 regarding damage, or the basis for Plaintiffs damage claim. Proof is demanded. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 12 above are incorporated herein by reference. 13. [sic] Denied. As averred in the foregoing paragraphs of the Answer, services performed by Sisic pursuant to the agreement with Mr. Blank were not in accordance with Exhibit A. It is admitted that Sisic had performed the installation of Dryvat stucco pursuant to Exhibit 1 attached to this pleading, and subject to Sisic's disclaimer and Blank's agreement that Sisic would not be responsible for weather- related problems. 14. Denied. Defendant performed installation services in accordance with his agreement with Mr. Blank. It is denied that Defendant failed in any material respect as to his undertaking. It is denied that Plaintiff has any basis to seek recovery from Defendant. 15. Denied. The foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. If Plaintiff incurs additional expense incident to repair or replacement of the Dryvat stucco, Defendant Sisic has no legal responsibility therefore. 16. It is denied that Plaintiff has any basis for a claim of damage or recovery against Sisic. It is admitted, however, that the amount claimed in Plaintiffs Complaint exceeds the arbitration limits as set forth in Local Rule 1301-1. 3 WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with costs. COUNT II - BREACH OF WARRANTY 17. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 16 above are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Denied. The proposal document attached as Exhibit 1, between Blank and Sisic, sets forth the terms and limitations of any warranty or undertaking by Sisic. It is denied that any such warranty obligation ran to or for the benefit of Plaintiff. 19. Denied. The answering averments of the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated by reference, together with the averments of New Matter set forth below. 20. Denied. The answering averments of the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated by reference, together with the averments of New Matter set forth below. 21. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has any basis for a claim of breach of express warranty obligation owed by Sisic to Plaintiff. By way of further response, the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference, together with the averments of New Matter set forth below. 22. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 21 are incorporated herein by reference by way of response to the averment of Paragraph 22. WHEREFORE, Defendant Sisic demands that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with costs. 4 NEW MATTER 23. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 24. Defendant Sisic had no contract with Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not an intended beneficiary of any agreement entered into between Sisic and either Bruder or Blank. 25. Defendant Sisic has no obligation sounding in contract, either arising under the proposals to Bruder or to Blank. Defendant Sisic has no obligation implied at law and sounding in contract, either for express or implied warranty owed to Plaintiff, and arising from Defendant Sisic's dealings with either Bruder or Blank. 26. Defendant Sisic was requested by Lee Bruder, d/b/a Bruder Construction, pursuant to the proposal, Exhibit A to the Complaint, to install Dryvat stucco at the project. 27. The document, Exhibit A to the Complaint, was superseded by a subsequent construction proposal, dated June 11, 2004, for the project. A copy of that proposal is attached as Exhibit 2 to this pleading. 28. Pursuant to the construction proposal of June 11, 2004, Exhibit 2, Defendant Sisic began to perform construction services, and installed certain facilities at the project. He did not install Dryvat or stucco material at that point. Instead, work was stopped because of nonpayment by Bruder. 29. Sisic withdrew from the project due to Bruder`s nonpayment. 5 30. In late October 2004, Sisic was asked Aquilla Blank and B. K. Builders, of Shippensburg, PA, to return to the job and to resume work on the Dryvat stucco, particularly to install the exterior finishes. B. K. Builders is the registered fictitious name of Isaac King and Joseph Blank, of R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 172+41. 31. Defendant Sisic advised Aquilla Blank that because of the impending cold weather there were serious concerns about proceeding with the installation of the Dryvat stucco material, and he did not wish to proceed with the work. Blank urged him to proceed nonetheless and, accordingly, in the construction proposal (Exhibit 1 to the pleading) Sisic expressly disclaimed responsibility for "any kind of damage", or for timeliness of completion of the project. 32. Blank accepted and agreed to Sisic's proposal that he would not be responsible for weather-related problems that might be encountered in the finished work product. 33. Defendant Sisic discussed with Blank the matter of expansion joints. Blank specifically instructed Sisic not to place expansion joints on the structure, for aesthetic reasons, and Sisic abided by those instructions. 34. Sisic is without speck knowledge and information as to whether Blank communicated with the prospective homeowner the risks incident to proceeding with the Dryvat stucco installation, and the disclaimer of responsibility by Sisic in proceeding with that work. If that information was not disclosed, it should have been. Plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the warnings by Sisic, and the disclaimer and limitation of any responsibility for future problems caused by weather. 6 35. To the extent that Plaintiffs structure has encountered buckling, cracking and bulging, Sisic believes that it may well be due to adverse weather conditions of the type which were specifically discussed between him and Blank and disclaimed in the construction proposal. 36. If Plaintiff has any actionable claim for financial responsibility for problems encountered in the Dryvat stucco exterior finish, that responsibility rests with either Lee Bruder, Bruder Construction, Aquilla Blank or the principals of B. K. Builders, Isaac King and Joseph Blank, and not with Sisic. 37. Defendant Sisic intends to file an Additional Defendant Complaint joining those responsible parties, to the extent permitted by law. 38. Defendant Sisic has not specifically assessed the likely repair costs for conditions encountered at the Plaintiffs structure, but reasonably believes that the fair and reasonable costs of completely reinstalling the job would be far less than the claim pleaded in the Complaint. In any event, that is not a matter for which Sisic has legal responsibility. Respectfully submitted, 7tt e Hajjar, Esquire y I.D. No. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: June 27, 2008 7 SISIC 4 Marshall d r Camp Hill. PA.17011 CONSTRUCTION Tel:717 728 7465 PROPOSAL NO.43 DATE.OKT.28.2004 PROPOSAL Proposal submitted to: Name vj /1s ,JL4,g1e Work tobe performed at; r ?F.?L - Adress ajf-lill lzl Adress_ City,State_ City,State 1 Phone no. Weherebe proposeto furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of Stuuco drwat 1.Dryvat stuuco (swirl finish, finestone). In the case of bad weather SISIC-Construction is not responsible for any kind of damage and for the job that is not finish on time. All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial w rk a like man for e s m?•• x? / ?c A4 r o Dollars $ O. o? t ) ants to as follows: st pay 0% up front,2nd pay40% in middel 3th pay30%at the end. Soo 0? Signature Gf ?` Date 1/Signature- s SISIC-CCNSTRUC-T N COMMERCIAL&RESIDENTIAL REMODELING Exhibit "1" S I S I V 4 Marshall dr PROPOSAL NO.36 Camp Hill. PA. 17011 DATE.JUN.03.2004 Construction Tel: 717 728 7465 PROPOSAL Proposal submitted to: Name: 'M4 8 -uvi=j,,,- 60N3. Adress /-V25 6J EwA- V/-5 7-A Work to be performed at: Adress LuCG/ N.P.A- D:. City,State fr'1"1M&LLfaH , RN ?S.u? City,State MM P? ?- N? CSCi u ?ec3 Phone no. (412) OL -- 71/ 30- Wehereby proposeto fumish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of Stuuco drvvaL 1.Dryvat stucco (swirl finish, finestone) on whole house(2500-3000sq feet) including all moulding designs arounde doors and windows. (frontside of the house). Shutters and hinges is not includ in the price. All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of ' r IttJ/7?/' ?4n?bK1ila1"S $ ?? ?©O t? ) .1d1 n E + wit nts to be as follows: pay 30% p front, 2 pay 40% in middel, 3 pa 30 bat th end. Signature Date G--ffd SISIC-CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL&RESIDENTIAL REMODELING f/o/ Exhibit "2" VERIFICATION I, SABIT SISIC, certify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that this verification is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: June 2008 AS C CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following: Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 it Esquire for Defendant Sabit Sisic Date: June 27, 2008 r TI V r\j JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : DOCKET NO. 07-7542 WS12. AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and d/b/a B. K. Builders, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Additional Defendants PRAECIPE FOR WRIT -0 1 To JorN??Dp(?py??s- , p6pp'4 7J TS ?r TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above matter against Additional Defendants Aquilla Blank, Isaac King and Joseph Blank, adult individuals believed to be maintaining a business address at 12552 Mungol Hill Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Additional Defendants sometimes are doing business as B. K. Builders, with a registered place of business at R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 17241. Ily submitted, ert Xgxahar, Attorney ttor D. No. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: July 8, 2008 N i L W ww m ?i WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT Cumberland County, ss: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and maintaining a business address at 12552 MUNGOL HILL RD, SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257, and d/b/a B. K. BUILDERS with a registered place of business at R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 17241. You are notified that SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, has joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are required to defend. Date: July 9, 2008 Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary By: cr?,c.a Deputy (Seal) yWSz No. 07-7fQ Civil Term JAMES CORNETT, III vs SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and d/b/a B. K. BUILDERS, Additional Defendant WRIT TO JOINED AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT ALBERT J. HAJJAR, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. NO. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-319-0713 Attorney for Defendant SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P. C. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES CORNETT, III V. Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :DOCKET NO: 07-7452 SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a, SISIC CONSTRUCTION Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Cornett, III, (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), by and through his counsel, SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C., and files his Answer to Defendant's New Matter and in support thereof aver as follows: 23. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 23 of Defendant's New Matter state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 24. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 24 of Defendant's New Matter state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 25. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 24 of Defendant's New Matter state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 26. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to what Defendant may or may not have been asked to do by Lee Bruder, d/b/a Bruder Construction and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further reply, Exhibit "A" to the Plaintiff's Complaint is a written document that speaks for itself. 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant has attached a document marked "Proposal" and dated June 11, 2004, to Defendant's Answer and New Matter. The balance of the averments set forth in paragraph 27 of Defendant's New Matter state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 28. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 28 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 29 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 30. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 30 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 31. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 31 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 32. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 32 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 2 33. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 34. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 34 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further reply, it is denied that "Plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the warnings by Sisic, and the disclaimer and limitation of any responsibility for future problems caused by weather." 35. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to what Defendant believes or does not believe is the cause of the damage to Plaintiff's home and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of Defendant's New Matter state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 37. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 37 of Defendant's New Matter and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 38. Plaintiff is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to what Defendant believes or does not believe regarding the costs associated with completely reinstalling the "job" and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's New Matter with prejudice, enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $135,000.00, and further award Plaintiff all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, <??- U),,? . -11LO-tiAtt, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney ID No. 66266 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: July 17, 2008 4 a- 3MFLICA_TION I, James Cornett, III verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false stitennents herein are nude subject to the penalties of IS Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to uasworn falsification to authorities. Date: 7' 16- og '" . s Cornett, III 5 r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 17'h, day of July, 2008, I served a copy of Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's New Matter by first-class mail, postage prepaid, in the Post Office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to the following person(s): Albert J. Hajjar, Esquire The Hajjar Law Office 1300 Market Street Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire 6 f^J n r S ; ' t C-a {{ ?i rr mow. ,. , C ti` JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-7452 AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and : d/b/a B. K. Builders, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Additional Defendants PRAECIPE FOR RE-ISSUE OF WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please re-issue a Writ to Join Additional Defendants in the above matter against Additional Defendants Aquilla Blank, Isaac King and Joseph Blank, adult individuals believed to be maintaining a business address at 12552 Mungol Hill Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Additional Defendants sometimes are doing business as B. K. Builders. Respectfully submitted, 'j, /-/ Al VX aj? ar, Esquire 061 D. No. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: August 11, 2008 r, 9? od O 'a ? N e"REISSUe,P WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT Cumberland County, ss: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and maintaining a business address at 12552 MUNGOL HILL RD, SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257, and d/b/a B. K. BUILDERS with a registered place of business at R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 17241. You are notified that SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, has joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are required to defend. Date: July 9, 2008 Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary By: Deputy (Seal) "92. No. 07-7-&G Civil Term JAMES CORNETT, III vs SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and d/b/a B. K. BUILDERS, Additional Defendant WRIT TO JOINED AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT ALBERT J. HAJJAR, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. NO. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Cl- F 4. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL 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 ADD'L DEFENDANT , to wit: BLANK AQUILLA but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN in his bailiwick. He therefore serve the within WRIT TO ADD'L DEFEN. County, Pennsylvania, to On September 16th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Franklin Co 85.70 Postage 6.91 1 6 7. D -L 09/16/2008 AJ HAJJAR So answe R. Thomas K ne Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL 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 ADD'L DEFENDANT , to wit: KING ISAAC but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN in his bailiwick. He therefore serve the within WRIT TO ADD'L DEFEN. County, Pennsylvania, to On September 16th , 2008 this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: So answers- Docketing ?- 6.00 Out of County .00 r.- Surcharge 10.00 Thomas Kline .00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 16. 00 of ?In$ 1?.,.. 09/16/2008 AJ HAJJAR Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL 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 ADD'L DEFENDANT , to wit: KING ISAAC D/B/A BK BUILDERS but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN serve the within WRIT TO ADD'L DEFEN. County, Pennsylvania, to On September 16th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 r% r% -w.ww 09/16/2008 AJ HAJJAR So answers: Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL 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 ADD'L DEFENDANT , to wit: BLANK JOSEPH but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN serve the within WRIT TO ADD'L DEFEN. County, Pennsylvania, to On September 16th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: So answe - - -?' J_. Docketing 6.00 -G Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas K i .00 / Sheriff of mberland County 16. 0 0 0 ? a ??'?` ?b? C' - 09/16/2008 AJ HAJJAR Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-07452 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CORNETT JAMES III VS SISIC SABIT ET AL 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 ADD'L DEFENDANT , to wit: BLANK JOSEPH D/B/A BK BUILDERS but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT TO ADD'L DEFEN. On September 16th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 . Thomas ine .00 Sheriff of'Cumberland County .00 16.00 09/16/2008 AJ HAJJAR Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Janes Cornett III - VS - Sabit Sisic et al vs. Aquilla Blank et al SERVE: Aquilla Blank No. 07-7452 civil Now, August 4, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, 20 qg , at s;t o'clock ? M. served the within (j)V 4 1 ?o m 4-A4 aria i bt i' Ln 4- upon li'Q k at by handing to a Ler i { copy of the original We: ' ior1? ad - bna? bW, and made known to Po nce 81&m k. the contents thereof So answers, Sworn and R?bscribed efore me this Iq ay of 20 117 E Ze"ca )? ..I n r f•l c Sheriff f County, PA COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT RICHARD D. McCARTY, Notary Public Chambersburg Boro., Franklin County My Commission Expires Jan. 29.2011 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania James Cornett III - VS - Sabit Sisic et ai VS. Aquilla Blank et al SERVE: Isaac King No. 07-7452 civil Now, August 4, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, , 20 , at o'clock M. served the within upon _ at by handing to a and made known to So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of County, PA Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20 copy of the original COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania James Cornett III - VS - Sabit Sisic et al vs. Aquilla Blank et al 07-7452 civil SERVE: Isaac King d/b/a B.K. Builders No. Now, August 4, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. //. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, , 20 , at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of County, PA Sworn and subscribed before me this day of '20 COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NO: 2008-00175 T COMMONTWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF FRANKLIN JAMES CORNETT III VS AQUILLA BLANK ET AL Cu r QR--r land (30V r\ 'It 0-1 - '145a- d BRIAN CRAMER Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: KING ISAAC IND. D/B/A B.K. BUILDERS but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the WRIT TO JOIN ADDTL DEF NOT FOUND , as to the within named DEFENDANT , KING ISAAC IND. D/B/A B.K. BUILDERS 12552 MUNGOL HILL RD SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 HASENT BENN WITH BUISNESS FOR 10-15 YEARS DOES NOT LIVE AT SAID ADDRESS Sheriff's Costs: So answer Docketing .00 Service .00 _ Affidavit .00 BRIAN ER Surcharge .00 DANE ANTHONY, Sheriff .00 .00 ALBERT H HAJJAR ESQ 08/21/2008 Sworn and subscribed to before me this /-4?k day of / b r A.D. RICHARD D. McCAUV, Notary Public Chambersburg Boro., Franklin County My Commission Expires Jan. 29, 2011 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania James Cornett III - VS - Sabit Sisic et al vs. Aquil.la Blank et al SERVE: Joseph Blank No. 07-7452 civil Now, August 4, 2008 - , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. County to execute this Writ, this ? Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, 20 ©8 , at _3, 140 o'clock P M. served the within W ,r+ ? ?o i h ? -ibv? a? }J ??ernd4 n' - upon at 702.0 Al `L h cr, N4 by handing to a p? f it c errs . copy of the original wr4 :ors ,t?Xit?ovra/? and made known to Mavy AK n d fan k the contents thereof. So answers, 010. ? Sworn and Wbscribed efore me this day of 20 ,w )i e COSTS SERVICE $ Iff MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT PA RICHARD D. McCARTY, Notary, Public Chambersburg Boroy Franklin County My Commission Expires•1an. 29, 2011 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania James Cornett III - VS - 5abit Sigic et ai vs. Aquilla Blank et al SERVE: Joseph Blank d/b/a B.K. Builders No. 07-7452 civil Now, August 4, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. County to execute this Writ, this Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, ) 20 D 8 , at -1,, 40 o'clock P M. served the within Lj1-i ? ?o Soli 1 l?na( ?ev cc? - upon .?aSeDh ISlar?K at 7020 M `C at M t by handing to #1&v%/ 4n', a L?v?l i eaC . copy of the original wri Sri ` , and made known to Mav k 4 N n Q 1a n k the contents thereof. So answers, Sworn and ;*bscribed efore me this day of 20 0 COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT ,PA _v RICHARD D. MCCARTY, Notary Public Chambersburg Boro., Franklin County My Commission Expires Jan. 29, 2011. 8?4 gg52 REi s)Et> WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT Cumberland County, ss: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and maintaining a business address at 12552 MONGOL HILL RD, SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257, and d/b/a B. K. BUILDERS with a registered place of business at R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 17241. You are notified that SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, has joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are required to defend. Date: July 9, 2008 r s - Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary By:? Deputy (Seal) 1 L GOPY FROM REGORL) In TWkmq Whow, I two two yet my hang f a w of set Court a . W52- No. 07-7W Civil Term JAMES CORNETT, III vs SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and d/b/a B. K. BUILDERS, Additional Defendant WRIT TO JOINED AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT ALBERT J. HAJJAR, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. NO. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-319-0713 Attorney for Defendant I -• JAMES CORNETT, 111, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant V. AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and d/b/a B. K. Builders, Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-;?W 74/-V, CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR WRIT flFTo,IorNr4?pp?j0s'- , TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above matter against Additional Defendants Aquilla Blank, Isaac King and Joseph Blank, adult individuals believed to be maintaining a business address at 12552 Mungol Hill Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Additional Defendants sometimes are doing business as B. K. Builders, with a registered place of business at R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 17241. submitted, ayar, Attorney ro=.D. No. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: July 8, 2008 .i WV4 Rol JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff v. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA -7 N s'3- DOCKET 190. 07-3°9#2 AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH-BLANK, Individually and d/b/a B. K. Builders, Additional Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BERN 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 s@rved, 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 waned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be enterVd 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 Stroet Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en Is corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dies de plazo al partir de Is fec:ha de Is demands y Is notification. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en Is corte en forma escrb sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, Is corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una omen contra usted sin previo aviso notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en Is petition de demands. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGAGO INMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGAGO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 Respectfully submitted, ;135 ?ar ar DN13 et Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: October 5 , 2008 JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, individually and d/b/a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant V. AQUILLA BLANK, and ISAAC KING and JOSEPH BLANK, Individually and d/b/a B. K. Builders, Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 'Wsa DOCKET NO. 07 W642- CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 1. Defendant Sabit Sisic is an adult individual doing business as Sabit Construction, maintaining it principal place of business at 9 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Additional Defendants Aquilla Blank, Isaac King and Joseph Blank are adult individuals believed to be maintaining a business address at 12552 Mungol Hill Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Further, Additional Defendants hold themselves out as B. K. Builders, a registered fictitious name, in which the principals are Isaac King and Joseph Blank, with a registered place of business at R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 17241. (A1210784:1) 3. A civil action has been filed by James Comett, 111, Plaintiff, in the above- referenced matter. A copy of Plaintiffs Complaint is appended as Exhibit 1 to this pleading. 4. Defendant Sisic has filed an Answer with New Matter to the said Complaint, a copy of which Answer with New Matter are appended hereto as Exhibit 2 to this pleading. 5. The answering averments of Defendant Sisic to Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 6. As averred in the Answer with New Matter of Defendant Sisic, Sisic denies that he has liability or responsibility to Plaintiff Cornett on any claim for liability or damages. 7. As averred in the Answer with New Matter, Defendant Sisic performed certain construction services at a project on Lucinda Drive in Mechanicsburg. 8. As averred in the Answer with New Matter, Defendant Sisic proceeded with the installation of stucco Dryvat product at the project, only at the specific request, urging and instruction of B. K. Builders and Aquilla Blank. 9. As avenged in the Answer with New Matter, if Plaintiff has sustained damage to the Dryvat stucco installation at the project, to the extent any such damage is attributable to installation-related problems, those problems arise from the specific urging, instruction, and advice of Additional Defendants Aquilla Blank and B. K. Builders, and not because of actionable conduct on the part of Defendant Sisic. (A1210794:1) 2 10. It is denied that Sisic has any liability to Plaintiff. However, if Plaintiff has any actionable claim for recovery of damage, said claim is the responsibility of Additional Defendants and not Defendant. 11. Should it be determined, notwithstanding the answering averrnents, Affirmative Defenses and New Matter set forth in Sisic`s pleading, Exhibit 2, that Sisic has any financial responsibility to Plaintiff, then Sisic demands judgment on a claim of liability over from Additional Defendants to him. 12. In the aitemative, and notwithstanding the Answer with New Matter defenses of Defendant Sisic, should it be determined that he has any liability to Plaintiffs, then such liability, if any, should be joint and several between him and Additional Defendants, and each of them. WHEREFORE, Defendant Sisic demands that any judgment to which Plaintiff might be found to be entitled be entered solely against the Additional Defendants and not him; alternatively, if Defendant Sisic is found to have any liability, that Additional Defendants be found to have liability over to him in like amount, and, in the further altemative, should Defendant Sisic be determined to have any liability to Plaintiff, that such liability be found to be joint and several with each of the Additional Defendants. submitted, it AI rt uar, Esquire o l.D. No. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Date: October ,3 , 2008 JA1210794:1) 3 VERIFICATION I, SABIT SISIC, certify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that this vedfice ion is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. d,? Date: 64005,:A- 3 , 2008 T SIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first class U. S. mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following: Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOOON 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110. for Defendant Sabit Sisic Date: October 3 , 2008 JAMES CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff :DOCKET NO: 07-7452 V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a, : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW SISIC CONSTRUCTION Defendant NOTICE 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, PA 17013 TRUE C""""Y Testimony re ; hand and the seal of said Court at Cap lisla, Pa- This ... day of..l ............. Prothonotary SERRATELLI, SCHIFFkIAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P. C. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, :DOCKET NO: 07-7452 V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a, : CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW SISIC CONSTRUCTION Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Cornett, III, (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & CAlhoon, P.C., and files his Complaint against Defendant, Sabit Sisic, individually and d/b/a SISIC Construction, and in support thereof avers as follows: The Parties 1. Plaintiff is an adult individual currently residing at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. Defendant Sabit Sisic is the sole proprietor of SISIC Construction, having a principal place of business located at 9 Texaco Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 3. Plaintiff is the owner of real property located 19 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 (hereinafter "the Property"). 2 Baclwround 4. On or about August 6, 2003, Defendant entered into a Construction Contract with Bruder Construction Co., (hereinafter "Bruder") for the construction of a home on the Property. 5. On or about June 5, 2004, Defendant submitted a written Proposal to Bruder, whereby proposing to furnish and install the stucco dryvat siding material for the home on the Property. A true and correct copy of the written Proposal from Defendant to Bruder is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 6. Plaintiff, the owner of the Property and the home where the Dryvat stucco was to be installed, was clearly the intended beneficiary of the Proposal. 7. It is believed and therefore averred that, at the time of entering into the Agreement, both Defendant and Bruder understood and intended Plaintiff to be the intended beneficiary of the Agreement. 8. Pursuant io the Proposal, Defendant agreed to install Dryvat stucco on the entire home, including molding designs around the doors and windows. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant used swirl finish Dryvat stucco manufactured by Finestone. 10. Defendant failed to properly install the siding on Plaintiffs home at the Property by failing to follow the product specifications which called for the installation of expansion joints. 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to properly install the siding, the siding on Plaintiffs home is buckling, cracking and bulging away from the structure. 3 12. The estimated cost to repair the defective stucco siding is $135,600. COUNT I -- BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 12 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth at length herein. 13. In accordance with the terms of the Proposal, Defendant agreed to furnish and install all siding on Plaintiffs home. 14. Defendant failed to properly complete installation of the siding by failing to follow the product specifications. 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to complete the siding in accordance with the Proposal, Plaintiff will be forced to hire a contractor to repair the defective siding and prevent further structural damage. 16. Plaintiffs damage claim exceeds the arbitration limits set forth in Cumberland County Local Rule 1301-1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant in an amount exceeding $135,000, plus costs, together with all such relief as is proper and just. COUNT H - BREACH OF W?TY 17. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth at length herein. 18. Pursuant to the terms of the Proposal, Defendant expressly warranted that all work at the Property would be completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. 4 19. Despite Defendant's express assurance that all work would be completed "in a substantial workmanlike manner", Defendant failed to follow the product specifications when installing the siding. 20. Defendant's failure to follow product specifications has resulted in buckling, cracking and bulging siding on Plaintiffs home. 21. Defendant's failure to complete the work in a substantial workmanlike manner constitutes a material breach of the express written warranty provided by Defendant. 22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of warranty, Plaintiff will be forced to hire a contractor to repair the defective siding and prevent further structural damage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant in an amount exceeding $135,000, plus costs, together with all such relief as is proper and just. Dated: ..a?i 3, I,C)t791 Respectfully submitted, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney ID No. 66266 SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 VLRMCAIION 1, James Cornett, III verify that the statemea s made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. 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: 5 am Cornett, III 6 S I S I C 4 ManshaN dr PROPOSAL No.39 Camp Nisi. PA. 17011 DATE.juN.03.2004 Construct?on Ys{: 717 728 7465 PROPOSAL Proposal submitted to: Name: K oEe, exW-S7,000i J-W Work to be per r med at Actress Is25 $u6v? l/i??s?: Adress I-UcllJZ>A .ST City,State ?'/i TsSt??P? PA /?£z!_2 City,State 146Ct *"1 cS S U,M r P Phone no. 5Mg - ?to/ - 7? 6 Wehereby proposeto furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of Stucco dryvat 1.Dryvat stucco (swirl finish, finestone) on whole house (2500-3000 aq feet),including all moulding designs arounde doors and widows. (on•frontside of the house). Shutters and hinges is not inciud In the price. Ali material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed In accordance with the drawings and specifications submitfied fur above work and completed in a s al vwrkmarQw mangy?' forthe sum of e?ninP Aoi=,ohre konori;;X *.J W(A($ 00 001 with payments to be as follows: 1 paw/ 30% up front 2 pay 40% in middel. 3 pay 30%at the and. PI COMMERCIAL&MIQEKMAL REMODELING JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and cVola SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-7542 CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: James Comett, III, Plaintiff, and Paige MacdorwkWMotthes, Esquire, his oftmey 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. Respectfully submitted, / h r y Cq .+„1 ? rar, Euire o. 07069 17, Market Street, Sui A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic r' Dated: June 27, 2008 JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b1a SABIT CONSTRUCTION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-7542 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant Sabit Sisic ("Sisic"), by his counsel, Albert J. Hagar, and makes this Answer with Now Matter to the Complaint filed in the above-referenced action: The Parties 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Defendant is without suffident knowledge or informatiion to form a belief as to the truth of the averment of Paragraph 3, which is thereficxe deemed denied. Background 4. Denied. It is denied that on or about August 6, 2003, Defendant entered into a Construction Contract with Bruder Construction Co. ("BnxW). 5. It is admitted that on or about June 5, 2004 Defendant Sisic submitted a proposal to provide certain services on a house then under construction. The authenticity of the document attached as Exhibit A is admitted. 6. Denied. It is denied that Exhibit A was an operative legal agreement between Defendant and Bruder. It is denied that Exhibit A created any third-party beneficiary status in Plaintiff or any other person. Paragraph 6 sets forth a conclusion of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. 7. Denied. It is denied that Defendant performed servicm pursuant to Exhibit A. It is denied that Defendant intended any person to be an "intended beneficiary' of Exhibit A. 8. Denied as stated. The proposal document, Exhibit A, speaks fior itself. Sisic did not install stucco Dryvat material pursuant to Exhibit A. 9. Denied as stated. The averments of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein by reference. Sisic did not install Dryvat stucco pursuant to Exhibit A. To the contrary, in late October 2004, Sisic was requested by Aquilla Blank, on behalf of B. K. Builders, of Shippensburg, PA, to perform the installation of Dryvat stucco e t the Luanda Drive project, under a proposal document dated October 28, 2004 (a copy is attached as Exhibit 1 to this pleading). It is admitted that when Sisic did perform services for Mr. Blank, he did use a swirl finish Dryvat stucco, manufactured by Finestone. 10. Denied. It is denied that Sisic failed to properly install Dryvat stucco on the property. It is denied that Sisic failed to fiollow product specifications. It is averred that Sisic was instructed by Mr. Blank not to install expansion joints in order to preserve an unbroken finished surface. 11. Denied. It is denied that Sisic failed to properly install Dryvat siding. By way of further response, see the averments of New Matter hereinafter. 2 12. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment of Paragraph 12 regarding damage, or the basis for Plaintiffs damage claim. Proof is demanded. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 12 above are incorporated herein by reference. 13. [sic] Denied. As averred in the foregoing paragraphs of the Answer, services performed by Sisk pursuant to the agreement with Mr. Blank were not in accordance with Exhibit A. It is admitted that Sisic had performed the installation of Dryvat stucco pursuant to Exhibit 1 attached to this pleading, and subject to Sisic's disclaimer and Blank's agreement that Sisic would not be responsible for weather- related problems. 14. Derived. Defendant perfomrved installation services in accordance with his agreement with Mr. Blank. It is denied that Defendant failed in any material respect as to his undertaking. It is denied that Plaintiff has any basis to seek recovery from Defendant 15. Denied. The foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. If Plaintiff incurs additional expense incident to repair or replacement of the Dryvat stucco, Defendant Sisic has no legal responsibility therefore. 16. It is denied that Plaintiff has any basis for a claim of damage or recovery against Sisic. It is admitted, however, that the amount claimed in Plaintiffs Complaint exceeds the arbitration limits as set forth in Local Rule 1301-1. 3 WHEREFORE. Defendant demands that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with costs. COUNT II -- BREACH OF WARRANTY 17. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 16 above are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Denied. The proposal document attached as Exhibit 1, between Blank and Sisic, sets forth the terms and limitations of any wartanty or undertaking by Sisic. It is denied that any such warranty obligation ran to or for the benefit of Plaintiff. 19. Denied. The answering averments of the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated by reference, together with the averments of New Matter set forth below. 20. Denied. The answering averments of the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated by reference, together with the averments of New Matter set forth below. 21. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has any basis for a claim of breach of express warranty obligation owed by Sisic to Plaintiff. By way of further response, the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference, together with the averments of New Matter set forth below. 22. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 21 are incorporated herein by reference by way of response to the averment of Paragraph 22. WHEREFORE, Defendant Sisic demands that Plaintiffs claim be dismissed with costs. 4 NEW MATTER 23. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 24. Defendant Sisic had no contract with Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not an intended beneficiary of any agreement entered into between Sisic and either Bruder or Blank. 25. Defendant Sisic has no obligation sounding in contract, either arising under the proposals to Bruder or to Blank. Defendant Sisic has no obligation implied at law and sounding in contract, either for express or implied warranty owed to Plaintiff, and arising from Defendant Sisic's dealings with either Bruder or Blank. 26. Defendant Sisic was requested by Lee Bruder, d/b/a Bruder Construction, pursuant to the proposal, Exhibit A to the Complaint, to install Dryvat stucco at the project. 27. The document, Exhibit A to the Complaint, was superseded by a subsequent construction proposal, dated June 11, 2004, for the project. A copy of that proposal is attached as Exhibit 2 to this pleading. 28. Pursuant to the construction proposal of June 11, 2004, Exhibit 2, Defendant Sisic began to perform construction services, and installed certain facilities at the project. He did not install Dryvat or stucco material at that point. Instead, work was stopped because of nonpayment by Bruder. 29. Sisic withdrew from the project due to Bni Ws nonpayment. 5 30. In late Ocher 2004, Sisic was asked Aquilla Blank and B. K. Builders, of Shippensburg, PA, to return to the job and to resume work on the Dryvat stucco, particularly to install the exterior finishes. B. K. Builders is the registered fictitious name of Isaac King and Joseph Blank, of R.D. 3, Box 2382, Newville, PA 17241. 31. Defendant Sisic advised Aquilla Blank that because of the impending cold weather there were serious concerns about proceeding with the installation of the Dryvat stucco material, and he did not wish to proceed with the work. Blank urged him to proceed nonetheless and, accordingly, in the construction proposal (Exhibit 1 to the pleading) Sisic expressly diisdaimed responsibility for "any kind of damage", or for timeliness of completion of the project. 32. Blank accepted and agreed to Sisic's proposal that he would not be responsible for weather-related problems that might be encountered in the finished work product. 33. Defendant Sisic discussed with Blank the matter of expansion joints. Blank specifically instructed Sisic not to place expansion joints on the structure, for aesthetic reasons, and Sisic abided by those instructions. 34. Sisic is without specific knowledge and information as to whether Blank communicated with the prospective homeowner the risks incident to proceeding with the Dryvat stucco installation, and the disclaimer of responsibility by Sisic in proceeding with that work. If that information was not disclosed, it should have been. Plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the warnings by Sisic, and the disclaimer and limitation of any responsibility for future problems caused by weather. 6 35. To the extent that Plaintiff's structure has encountered buckling, cracking and bulging, Sisic believes that it may well be due to adverse weather conditions of the type which were specifically discussed between him and Blank and disclaimed in the construction proposal. 36. If Plaintiff has any actionable claim for financial responsibility for problems encountered in the Dryvat stucco exterior finish, that responsibility rests with either Lee Bruder, Bruder Construction, Aquilla Blank or the principals of B. K. Builders, Isaac King and Joseph Blank, and not with Sisic. 37. Defendant Sisic intends to file an Additional Defendant Complaint joining those responsible parties, to the extent permitted by law. 38. Defendant Sisic has not specifically assessed the likely repair costs for conditions encountered at the Plaintiff's structure, but reasonably believes that the fair and reasonable costs of completely reinstalling the job would be far less than the claim pleaded in the Complaint. In any event, that is not a matter for which Sisic has legal responsibility. Respectfully submitted, Hajjar, Esquire I.D. No. 07069 1300 Maya rket Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: June 27, 2008 7 Art _a_ t.,..,ail dr PROPOSAL NO.43 Cpamp Iii. PA_17011 DZ1TE.OKT.28.2004 ` ON ST C TI T -el:717 728 7465 IX 07 SA11 Proposal submitted to: Names ?? oe?s f v, I is 6Z4,R Work Lobe performed at, Adress 1JS,S 1v?d? 4,ff Rc( Adress 4(1,V ! . City,State , W5? City,State ft t? / Phone no. Weherebe proposeto furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of Stuuco drvvat 1.0ryvat stuuco (swirl finish, finestone). In the case of bad weather SISIC-Construction is not responsible for any kind of damage and for the job that is not finish on time. All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial w rk a like manor for" sYm ? z K'7 ??l1Xr.i?'+rc° yn:?tits !)t dE? r Dollars ants to be as follows: Cst pay % up front,2nd pay4O% in middel n Soon Signature Date Signature the end. SIS!C-C0NS,TP.UCTi0 - COMMERCIAL&RESIDB"AL REMODEUNG Exhibit "1" It Construction 4 Marshall dr PROPOSAL NO.36 Camp Hill. PA. 17011 DATE.JUN.03.2004 Tel: 717 728 7465 Proposal subrnitled to: Name: Z 84 8riuo cue. Cd Ljs. Adress 6 (1Ek,4q- VlS i ,A PROPOSAL Work to be perlbrmed at Adress LUCI N-V-A- C<- city, state ?. ?,u,e? P?4 /52i?City,State_M?c? -?ViCsaa+ec3 Phone no._ 4u) /{fl/ - 7q Wehereby proposeto furnish the materials and perform the labor neoessary for the completion of Stuuco drwat 1.Dryvat stucco (swirl finish, firestone) on whole house(2500-3000sq feet) including all moulding designs &rounds doors and windows. (frontside of the house). Shutters and hinges is not induct in the price All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and spWkadons submitted for a lxm work and wmpieW in a fu ? substantial nnieia4140U..S ?tre luw eW 4- W$ ,,,Z9. 6-oo T ev) *0 -pawWft to be as fblkms: Pay 30% p front, 2 pay 40% in middel, 3 end. Signature Date Signature 4? SISIC-CONSTRIIC I IO COMMERCIAL&RESIDENTIAL REMODELING gAiibit "2" VERIFICATION I, SABIT SISIC, certify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that this verification is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: June 2008 B S C /7 V- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following: Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 it Esquire for Defendant Sabit Sisic Date: June 27, 2008 rn In IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY James Cornett III, Plaintiff V. Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction, Defendant V. Aquila Blank, Isaac King, and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders, Additional Defendants Civil Action - Law Oq- 145a No. (W ;?54? NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Albert J. Hajjar, Esq, and Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction, Defendant You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed preliminary objection to the complaint against additional defendants within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a judgment may be Aptered against you. _ / ?., ttorn y for Additional Defendants iia Blank and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders Sup Court I.D.# 38262 P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY James Cornett 111, Plaintiff Civil Action - Law No. 07-7542 V. Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction, Defendant V. Aquila Blank, Isaac King, and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders, Additional Defendants ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO COMPLAINT AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS Additional defendants, Aquila Blank and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders (erroneously referred to as "Aquila Blank, Isaac King, and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders" in the complaint against additional defendants), by and through their attorney, Joseph A. Macaluso, hereby file the following preliminary objection to the complaint of defendant Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction against additional defendants, as follows: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: LACK OF CAPACITY TO SUE 1. In Paragraph No. 1 of the complaint against additional defendants, defendant recites that he does business as "Sabit Construction." 2. Section 302 of the Business Corporation Law, 54 Pa. C. S. A. Section 302, defines an entity as including an individual, such as defendant. 3. Section 303(b) of the Business Corporation Law, 54 Pa. C. S. A. Section 303(b), requires an entity, such as defendant, to register his name with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant has not registered his fictitious name, "Sabit Construction", as required by said Section 303(b), as shown in the print-out dated October 15, 2008, from thg website for the Pennsylvania Department of State, a copy whereof is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. Because defendant has not registered his fictitious name, he is prohibited from maintaining any action, including the complaint against additional defendants in the case sub judice, in any tribunal in this Commonwealth, pursuant to 54 Pa. C. S. A. Section 331(a). 6. Furthermore, because defendant has instituted his complaint against additional defendants without first registering his fictitious name, defendant is required to pay a civil penalty to the Commonwealth in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, pursuant to 54 Pa. C. S. A. Section 331(b). WHEREFORE, the additional defendants, Aquila Blank and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders, respectfully request that the Court enter an Order dismissing defendant's complaint against additional defendants, and barring defendant from filing a complaint against additional defendants until such time as defendant demonstrates to the Court that his fictitious name has been properly registered with the Commonwealth and that he has paid the civil penalty to the Commonwealth in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars. IN Su al Defendants eph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders Supreme Court I.D.# 38262 P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 J se h A. Macaluso or ey for Addition ' Blank and Jos wrpurattvns system ?earcn Kesults t'ace I Q, Corporations online Services I Corporations I Forms I Contact Corporations I Business Ser., -- '? Irci' Search Type: Starting With Search Criteria: Sabit Construction y L? us:ness Name D,,_: ness Entity ID Search Date: 10/15/2008 Search Time: 13:45 Verify uAty Certification No Records were found for the search criteria 'Sabit Construction' on Online Orders 10/15/2008 1:45:27 PM ?ey ster for Online ;lei S at'! Good Standing ?)raer Certified Documents Order Bus?n ess List Mytimages search for IInages Home I Site Map I Site Feedback I View as Text Only I Employment p4 -?: h orc ? Copyright O 2002 Pennsylvania Department of State. All Rights Reserved. Commonwealth of PA Privacy Statement 'A 0 http://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/SearchResults.asp?FormName=CorpNam... 10/151/2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 17, 2008, 1 caused to be served a true and correct copy of the attached preliminary objection to defendant's complaint against additional defendants, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following individuals: Albert J. Hajjar, Esq. (Attorney for defendant) 1300 Market St., Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17013 Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esq. (Attorney for plaintiff) 2080 Linglestown Rd. Harrisburg, PA 17110 I further certify that the statements made herein are true and correct, and I understand that if any false statements were ma herein, the same would be subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4 4, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. / . .-,57„ / Dated: October 1-7,2008 A. AR ?ti t'7 y t y ."C s 1i 94 ?_ VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this preliminary objection to the complaint against additional defendants are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that if. any false statements are made herein I am subject to the penalties of perjury contained in Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 0,YL 1 5- " 0 g IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY James Cornett 111, Plaintiff Civil Action - Law No. 0- 0- 7115 V. Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction, Defendant V. Aquila Blank, a/k/a Aquilla Blank, and Joseph Blank, individually and d/b/a B. K. Builders, Additional Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction c/o Albert J. Hajjar, Esq.,1300 Market St., Suite A, Lemoyne, PA 17013 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. Jose h A. Macalusd- Supr me Court I.D.# 38262 ttor ey for Additional Defendants Aquilla Blank an Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY James Cornett III, Plaintiff Civil Action - Law No. 07-7542 V. Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction, Defendant V. Aquila Blank, a/k/a Aquilla Blank, and Joseph Blank, individually and d/b/a B. K. Builders, Additional Defendants ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS AND NEW MATTER Additional defendants Aquilla Blank and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders, by and through their attorney, Joseph A. Macaluso, hereby answer the Amended Complaint of Defendant Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction Against Additional Defendants, as follows: ANSWER 1. Additional defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the fictitious name of defendant has been properly registered with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that defendant has paid the civil penalty to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars for having filed this action against additional defendants without first having registered his fictitious name as required by 54 Pa. C. S. A. Section 331(b). The means of proof of said allegation are within the exclusive control of defendant, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 are admitted. 2. The allegations of Paragraph 2 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is specifically denied that Isaac King presently is, or at any relevant time mentioned herein was, a principal of B. K. Builders, and that a fictitious name was registered for a registered office in Newville. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 2 are admitted. 3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is specifically denied that the complaint in any way pertains to additional defendants. The complaint speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 are admitted. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is specifically denied that the answer to the complaint with new matter names additional defendants as parties. The answer to the complaint with new matter speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted. 5. The defendant seeks to incorporate by reference the allegations of his answer to the complaint with new matter, as though set forth at length, which additional defendants maintain violates Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1022, which requires that: "Every pleading shall be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. Each paragraph shall contain as far as practicable only one material allegation." Inasmuch as additional defendants have already filed preliminary objections in this case, and defendant has already filed an amended complaint against additional defendants, additional defendants merely answer that it is impossible for them to answer all the allegations of defendant in his answer to the complaint with new matter within their answer in this Paragraph 5, and so no further response is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed to be required, it is specifically denied that answering additional defendants are in any way liable to plaintiff or defendant. 6. Paragraph 6 contains merely legal suppositions and is not directed to additional defendants, and so no response is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed to be required, it is specifically denied that answering additional defendants are in any way liable to plaintiff or defendant. 7. Paragraph 7 does not refer to plaintiff nor does it specify the precise address of the residence of plaintiff, however, to the extent that defendant intends to refer to the residence of plaintiff, the allegations of Paragraph 7 are admitted. 8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is specifically denied that answering additional defendants were a general contractor for plaintiff, and it is specifically denied that answering additional defendants had or exercised any authority or control whatsoever over defendant at any relevant time, and it is specifically denied that answering additional defendants instructed defendant how to perform his work at any relevant time. In support of this, and further answering, additional defendants aver that plaintiff did not name them as parties in his suit and plaintiff did not refer to them as a general contractor. It is admitted that additional defendants did request that defendant complete his work for plaintiff, however, additional defendants are not in any way liable to plaintiff or defendant. 9. It is specifically denied that additional defendants were a general contractor for plaintiff, and it is specifically denied that answering additional defendants gave any advice or instruction whatsoever to defendant at any relevant time. Further answering, additional defendants repeat their answer in Paragraph 8 above, as though set forth in extenso. 10. Paragraph 10 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed to be required, it is specifically denied that additional defendants are in any way liable to plaintiff or defendant. 11. Paragraph 11 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed to be required, it is specifically denied that additional defendants are in any way liable to plaintiff or defendant. 12. Paragraph 12 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed to be required, it is specifically denied that additional defendants are in any way liable to plaintiff or defendant. WHEREFORE, additional defendants demand dismissal of the complaint of defendant against additional defendants, and that judgment be entered in their favor and against defendant. NEW MATTER Further answering the complaint of defendant Sabit Sisic d/b/a Sabit Construction, additional defendants Aquilla Blank and Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders, by and through their attorney, Joseph A. Macaluso, aver the following New Matter: 13. Additional defendants were the carpenters on the job for plaintiff referred to in the complaint, and as such were sub-contractors. 14. Additional defendants were not at any time the general contractor for plaintiff on the job for plaintiff referred to in the complaint. 15. Defendant was responsible for stucco Dryvat product on the job for plaintiff referred to in the complaint, and as such was a sub-contractor. 16. Defendant executed a Proposal dated June 5, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Proposal #1"), for the aforesaid stucco dryvat product with Bruder Construction, the general contractor, for the price of $29,500.00, a copy whereof is attached to the complaint as Exhibit A. 17. Defendant executed a separate Proposal dated June 11, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Proposal #2"), for the aforesaid stucco dryvat product with "DBA Bruder Cons.", the general contractor, for the price of $29,500.00, a copy whereof is attached to the complaint of defendant against additional defendants as Exhibit 2. 18. Proposal #1 and Proposal #2 clearly reflect that defendant regarded Bruder Construction as general contractor on the subject job. 19. Proposal #1 and Proposal #2 clearly reflect that defendant did not regard additional defendants as general contractor on the subject job. 20. The complaint itself clearly reflects that plaintiff did not regard additional defendants as general contractor on the subject job, by reason of the fact that additional defendants are not referred to as the general contractor and they are not named as parties therein. 21. Defendant executed another separate Proposal dated October 28, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Proposal #W), for the aforesaid stucco dryvat product, with additional defendants, for the balance of the price of $16,500.00, a copy whereof is attached to the complaint of defendant against additional defendants as Exhibit 1. 22. Proposal #3 was merely an accommodation to defendant to encourage him to complete the work he started for plaintiff, and to assure defendant that if he were not paid for his work, additional defendants would pay him. 23. The reason for Proposal #3 was that defendant had informed additional defendants that he did not want to complete the work he had started for plaintiff, because defendant was concerned that he would not be paid. 24. Additional defendants did request and encourage defendant to complete the work he had started for plaintiff. 25. However, Proposal #3 did not change the relationship of defendant and additional defendants as sub-contractors. 26. Proposal #3 did not in any way transform additional defendants into general contractor. 27. Defendant is attempting to portray an act by additional defendants to assure payment of the balance due to defendant into a new relationship as general contractor. 28. Additional defendants did not exercise any authority or control whatsoever over defendant regarding the performance of his work at any relevant time. 29. Additional defendants did not give any advice whatsoever to defendant regarding the performance of his work at any relevant time. 30. Additional defendants did not give any instruction whatsoever to defendant regarding the performance of his work at any relevant time. 31. Additional defendants did not supervise defendant regarding the performance of his work at any relevant time. 32. Defendant is solely responsible to plaintiff for any defects in the work and/or materials he furnished to plaintiff. 33. Defendant is solely responsible to plaintiff for any error of judgment he made regarding the work and/or materials he furnished to plaintiff. 34. Additional defendants are not in any way responsible to plaintiff for any defects in the work and/or materials that defendant furnished to plaintiff. 35. Additional defendants are not in any way responsible to plaintiff for any error of judgment defendant made regarding the work and/or materials he furnished to plaintiff. 36. Defendant has failed to state a valid claim against additional defendants upon which relief can be granted. 37. Any loss incurred by defendant is the direct result of its own negligence. 38. Any injury incurred by plaintiff is the direct result of the actions of defendant, over whom additional defendants exercised no control. 39. There is no contractual basis for liability of additional defendants for the work and/or materials that defendant furnished to plaintiff. 40. There is no legal theory to support any liability of additional defendants for the work and/or materials that defendant furnished to plaintiff. WHEREFORE, additional defendants demand dismissal of the complaint of defendant against additional defendants, and that judgment be entered in their favor and against defendant. Respectfully submitted, Jo ph A. Macaluso, Esq. Sup erne Court I.D. # 38262 tto ney for Additional Defendants AquWa,%Qnk an Joseph Blank, d/b/a B. K. Builders P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 (717) 532-4832 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer to complaint against additional defendants, and new matter, are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that if any false statements are made herein we am subject to the penalties of perjury contained in Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. A a Blank Josji¢h Blank Dated: ,.!l/a cr 00 0_2_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November Za 2008, 1 caused to be served a true and correct copy of the attached answer to complaint against additional defendants, and new matter, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following individuals: Albert J. Hajjar, Esq. (Attorney for defendant) 1300 Market St., Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17013 Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esq. (Attorney for plaintiff) 2080 Linglestown Rd. Harrisburg, PA 17110 I further certify that the statements made herein are true and correct, and I understand that if any false statements were made herein, the same would be subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: November 216), 2008 Joseph A. Macaluso `C 00 00 0 ? Oi'L' JAMES CORNETT, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SABIT SISIC, Individually and d/b/a SISIC CONSTRUCTION, Defendant v. -70' DOCKET NO.07-7642- AQUILA BLANK and JOSEPH BLANK, : Individually and d/b/a B. K. Builders, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Additional Defendants REPLY TO NEW MATTER Defendant Sabit Sisis by and through his attorney, Albert J. Hajjar, makes the following Reply to the New Matter of Additional Defendants Aquila Blank and Joseph Blank, as follows: 13. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 13 is a conclusion of law to which no further responsive pleading is required. By way of further reply, however, Additional Defendants did act on a the job as a contractor directing the work of Defendant Sisic. 14. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraph. 15. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraph, and for the reasons more fully set forth in the Complaint against Additional Defendants. 16. Denied. The characterization of the document is denied. Defendant incorporates the averments of Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, particularly Paragraph 7 through 9 by way of further response. 17. Denied. The characterization of the document in Paragraph 17 of New Matter is denied. Defendant's answers to Plaintiffs Complaint with respect to that document are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 18 are a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. By way of further response, however, the answering averments of Defendant's Answer to the Complaint and Plaintiffs Complaint against Defendant are incorporated herein by reference. 19. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraph. 20. Denied. The characterization of the Complaint set forth in paragraph 20 of New Matter is denied. By the answering averments set forth in Defendant's Answer to the Complaint, and the Defendant's averments against Additional Defendants are incorporated herein by reference by way of further response. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. The characterization of the October 28, 2004 document is denied. By way of further response, any work initially done by Defendant was pursuant to his arrangement with Bruder. By way of further response, the promises made by Additional Defendants to Defendant in connection with the October 28, 2004 document included a promise of direct payment and a release of Defendant from any claims concerning weather related problems with the work or scheduling and delay in the completion of the work. 23. Denied as stated. The answering averments above, including particularly the averments of Paragraph 22 above, are incorporated herein by reference. 24. Denied as stated. The answering averments of Paragraph 22 above are incorporated herein by reference. 25. Denied. The execution of the document dated October 28, 2004 did constitute a direct contractual relationship between Defendant and Additional Defendants. In the performance and completion of work, Additional Defendants served as a general contractor with respect to Sisic thereafter. 2 26. Denied for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 25 above. 27. The averments of the foregoing Paragraphs of this Reply are incorporated by reference in response to Paragraph 27. 28. Denied. Additional Defendants did exercise authority and control over Defendant with respect to the performance of work at the jobsite. 29. Denied. Additional Defendants did give advice and guidance to the Defendant regarding the performance of his work at the jobsite. 30. Denied. Additional Defendants did give instruction to Defendant in the performance of his work at the jobsite. 31. Denied as stated. The answering averments of the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply, above, are incorporated herein by reference. 32. Denied. For the reasons set forth at length in the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply, as well as the Answer of Defendant and the Complaint against Additional Defendants, the Additional Defendants are responsible to Plaintiff in connection with Plaintiffs claims of defects in workmanship or materials. 33. Denied. It is denied Defendant made errors of judgment regarding the work and/or materials furnished at the jobsite. It is denied that Defendant furnished materials or services to Plaintiff. 34. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply. 35. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply. 36. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply. 37. Denied. 38. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply. 3 39. Denied. The basis for contractual liability of Additional Defendants is set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply together with the averments of the Complaint against Additional Defendants. 40. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply and the Complaint against Additional Defendants. WHEREFORE Defendant requests that the New Matter of the Additional Defendants be dismissed and that judgment be entered against Additional Defendants in accordance with the prayer of the Complaint against them. Respectfully submitted, fl It agar, Esquire Al XI. o D. N o. 07069 1300 Market Street, Suite A Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 319-0713 Attorney for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: December _, 2008 4 VERIFICATION I, SABIT SISIC, certify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that this verification is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I Date. (2-1-02 B SISI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following: Joseph A. Macaluso, Esquire P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Esquire for Defendant Sabit Sisic Dated: December. 2008 ..r3 ,e 7.,.a??.