Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1846 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA NO. 0.2 - /{IIb G()~lL I~ ORIGINAL V. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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. Cwnberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF DEFENDANT. LARRY V. NEIDLINGER. TO NEW MATTER PURSUANT Pa. R.C.P. 2252 OF DEFENDANTS JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS And now comes Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, by his counsel, Robert A. Lerman, Esquire and Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins and files the following Reply to New Matter as follows: 59. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 59 of the Kutulakis Defendants' New Matter constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied that Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis are entitled to recover from Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, for contribution and/or indemnification and it is further denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is alone liable to the Plaintiffs and it is denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is liable over to the Kutulakis Defendants and it is denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is jointly or severally liable to or with the Kutulakis Defendants and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. Dated: 1/ltf6L 2 VERIFICATION I, Larry V. Neidlinger, hereby verity that the statements made in the foregoing Reply of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, To New Matter Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2252 of Defendant Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief, as well as reports, records, conferences and other investigatory material made available to me. To the extent that the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact, I verity that my knowledge or information is sufficient to form a belief that one or more of them is true, although I am currently unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true. To the extent that the foregoing contains legal conclusions or opinions, I hereby state that my Verification is made upon the advice of counsel, upon whom I have relied in the filing this document. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904 related to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: 7/1 /()~ ( IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this I L ~ay of JcJ ~ ' 2002, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, TRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certity that I have this date served a copy of the Reply of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, To New Matter Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2252 of Defendant Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A l711 0 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 171 0 1 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) klr/neidlinger-rep.z BY; Robert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 >- ~ 1-.- ~~i ~:!'5F~ 6e.. LU('.. =U\ lL :c. j--. t.L o C'J t.r. c;., :c .q E G_ :::> o~ ~~J ;.r:. S~~ ""rp ...J2: o:z U.1L1.J , 1.10.. :2 :-J u 1..0 . :5 -, N C) MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA V. NO. 0:2 - '1'~1o crH..)\'L'-r~ ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants CNIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTlCIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted qui ere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defenses 0 sus objections alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTA. SI NO TlENE ABODAGO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VA Y A EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUY A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 249-3166 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA v. NO. ();t - IJ'I./b C ;,u'\.( I f.A..~ ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants CNIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy, are persons of the full age of majority, husband and wife, residing in Chadds Ford, Delaware, County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Adin Kenes, is a person of the full age of majority and resident of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is a person of the full age of majority and resident of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, are persons of the full age of majority, husband and wife, and residents of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. The accident made subject of this Complaint took place on May 21,2000 at the residence of Jason and Joanne Kutulakis located at 411 Barnstable Road in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy were guests of Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis at the time ofthe accident. 7. The accident occurred when the interior staircase leading from the first to the second floor ofthe Kutulakis' residence collapsed with Mrs. Cassidy at the top ofthe stairs. 8. Mrs. Cassidy had ascended the stairs and was at the top of the staircase when the stairs collapsed. 9. The staircase had been constructed as part of renovations to the Kutulakis' home that were underway at the time ofthe accident. 10. Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy believe, and therefore aver, that the staircase in question actually consisted of two separate flights of stairs. 11. The first flight of stairs contained approximately seven wooden steps up to a landing area. 12. The second flight of steps was at a 90-degree angle and contained approximately five wooden steps. 13. The stair stringers or sides of the steps were constructed of what is believed to have been 2x12 pine wood boards which had been saw cut to permit installation of2xl0 stair treads. 14. The top of the stairs where Mrs. Cassidy was standing at the time the staircase collapsed was nailed with what was later determined to have been two nails into the header board at the top ofthe staircase. 15. The bottom of the stair stringer was nailed to the landing platform. 16. When Mrs. Cassidy ascended to top of the stairs, the stair stringer split apart, causing the staircase to collapse. 17. As a result, Mrs. Cassidy fell approximately ten feet to the floor below. 18. The staircase, including stair stringers and stair treads, were designed and constructed by Defendant, Adin Kenes. 19. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendant, Adin Kenes, was hired or otherwise retained by Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to perform the work on behalf of Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis. 2 20. The staircase as designed and constructed by Defendant, Adin Kenes, was held in place at the top by merely two nails that were drove diagonally through the top of the stair stringers into the headboard at the top of the staircase. 21. In designing and building the staircase, Defendant Kenes over cut the stair stringers where the stair treads were to be installed. 22. By over cutting the stair stringers where the stair treads were to be installed, Defendant Kenes created a weak and dangerously unsafe staircase that would most assuredly collapse in normal use. 23. Additionally, the staircase as designed and constructed by Defendant, Adin Kenes, consisted of stair stringers that were split. Defendant Kenes attempted to nail the fractured stringers together in an effort to use them as the sides and base for the stair treads. 24. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that the Defendant, Adin Kenes, was retained by Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to design and construct the staircase in question for the benefit ofMr. and Mrs. Kutulakis. 25. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that at all material times herein, Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, was retained by Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis to accomplish certain renovations to their home. 26. Accordingly, at all material times herein, Defendant, Adin Kenes, acted as an employee, agent, apparent agent, or servant of Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, as he performed work for their benefit and it is believed that it was his work in the design and construction ofthe staircase in question that caused harm to Plaintiff. 3 27. Additionally, based on the facts as Plaintiffs understand them to have been, Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, at all material times herein, was contracted by Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, to perform renovations to their home, and was therefore an employee, agent, apparent agent, or servant of Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis. 28. As Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, hired Defendant Neidlinger to renovate their home, and Defendant Neidlinger hired Defendant Kenes to assist in those renovations, Defendants Neidlinger and Kenes were at all material times herein the employees, agents, apparent agents, or servants of Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis. 29. At all material times herein, Defendants Neidlinger and Kenes acted to benefit Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, with respect to the renovations ongoing to the Kutulakis home, and were compensated for so doing, and were therefore employees, agents, apparent agents, and/or servants of Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis. 30. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, Adin Kenes, and Larry V. Neidlinger, had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition of the staircase designed and constructed by Defendant Kenes, as alleged herein, well before the accident in question. 31. Despite this knowledge, Defendants, Jason or Joanne Kutulakis, Adin Kenes, nor Larry V. Neidlinger, took any action to correct the dangerous condition of the staircase designed and constructed by Defendant Kenes, as alleged herein, or to warn invitees, such as was Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy at the time of the accident, of the staircase's dangerous and defective condition. 32. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that a reasonable and prudent inspection of the design and construction of the staircase in question would have revealed to all 4 Defendants that the staircase was held in place at the top with only two nails, that the stringers were over cut and therefore made weak, and that the stringers were split and nailed to hold them together. 33. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that each Defendant had a duty to inspect the staircase in question, find the defective and dangerous conditions, as alleged herein, and take reasonable measures to correct the defective and dangerous condition and to warn invitees such as was the Plaintiff not to use the staircase until such corrective measures had been taken. 34. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that each Defendant breached their duty of care to the Plaintiffs and that this breach caused all of Plaintiffs' damages, as alleged herein. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the staircase collapse, Mrs. Cassidy fell approximately ten feet to the floor below, suffering multiple and serious injuries to her body, including, but not limited to, a severe compound open fracture dislocation of her right ankle. Approximately one-third of her lower tibia was avulsed out of the skin. This was associated with a bimalleolar fracture of the right ankle. 36. Mrs. Cassidy's severe compound open fracture of her right ankle required an open reduction internal fixation surgery to her right ankle with a fusion through the use of surgical hardware consisting of a lateral plate with two compression malleolar screws that was performed on an emergency basis at the Carlisle Hospital by Dr. Thomas Green on the date of the accident. She was required to remain in the Carlisle Hospital through May 26, 2000. 37. Mrs. Cassidy's severe compound open fracture dislocation of her right ankle caused severe post traumatic arthritis and degenerative cysts to develop in the bones of her ankle, 5 as well as avascular necrosis, which required subsequent surgery on October 26,2001 by Dr. Keith Wapner at the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 38. Mrs. Cassidy's severe ankle fracture required extensive casting, bracing, rehabilitation, physical therapy, the use of various orthotic devices such as walkers, commodes, and miscellaneous devices. 39. Mrs. Cassidy sustained other injuries in the accident, including, but not limited to, a laceration of her left ear that required sutures and abrasions and trauma to her face, buttocks and hips. 40. The injuries suffered by Mrs. Cassidy in the accident has caused her great pain and suffering and will continue to do so for the rest of her life, as well as permanent scarring and disfigurement, physical disability and limitations, medical, related rehabilitative and orthotic expenses, which will continue for the remainder of her life, lost income from the time of the accident, and a permanent loss of earnings and earning capacity, embarrassment and humiliation due to her limitations and handicaps and a permanent loss oflife's enjoyment and pleasures, and claim is made therefor. 41. As a result of his wife's injuries, Mr. Cassidy has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of his wife's consortium, society, support, services and companionship, much his detriment, and claim is made therefor. COUNT I Marrie Anne Cassidv and Richard W. Cassidy v. Aden Kenes 42. Paragraph one through forty-one of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 6 43. At all material times, Defendant, Aden Kenes, owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care in the design and construction ofthe interior staircase of the KUTULAKIS home. 44. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendant, Aden Kenes, breached his duty of care to Plaintiffs, and caused Plaintiffs harm as alleged herein, and was therefore negligent in the following particulars: a. Over cutting the stair stringers, thereby weakening the integrity ofthe staircase; b. Using split or otherwise damaged stringers; c. Attempting to repair the damaged or weakened stringers with nails; d. Utilizing only two nails to connect the top of the stairs to the top header board of the staircase; e. Failing to inspect the staircase; f. Failing to warn others of the dangerous design and construction of the staircase as alleged herein; g. Designing a staircase which was inherently weak and unsafe for reasons as alleged herein; and h. Constructing an unsafe and unusable staircase for reasons as alleged herein. 45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries as alleged herein and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendant, Aden Kenes, in an amount in excess of Twenty-five ($25,000) Thousand Dollars and any amount requiring compulsory arbitration and for all general and equitable relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court under the circumstances and for a trial by jury. 7 COUNT II Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W, Cassidy v. Larry V, Neidlinl!er 46. Paragraph one through forty-one of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 47. At all material times, Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care in overseeing the design and construction of the interior staircase of the Kutulakis home. 48. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendant Neidlinger breached this duty of care owed to them and is therefore responsible for all damages as alleged herein. 49. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendant Neidlinger was negligent and that his negligence caused their harm, and that Defendant Neidlinger was therefore negligent in the following particulars: a. Allowing for the over cutting the stair stringers, thereby weakening the integrity of the staircase; b. Allowing for the use of split or otherwise damaged stringers; c. Allowing for the attempted repair of damaged or weakened stringers with nails; d. Allowing for the use of only two nails to connect the top of the stairs to the top header board ofthe staircase; e. Failing to inspect the staircase; f. Failing to warn others of the dangerous design and construction of the staircase as alleged herein; g. Designing a staircase which was inherently weak and unsafe for reasons as alleged herein; h. Constructing an unsafe and unusable staircase for reasons as alleged herein; 8 1. Knowing or having reason to know of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein well before Plaintiffs accident and doing nothing to correct or warn about the condition; J. Defendant knew or should have known of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs well before Plaintiffs accident and should have taken corrective measures or warned about them, yet failed to do so; k. Defendant was placed on notice and had actual knowledge of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein well before Plaintiffs accident and should have taken corrective measures or warned about them, yet failed to do so; l. Defendant should have known of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein, had an adequate and appropriate inspection of the stairs been performed during or immediately following its construction, yet failed to do so; and m. Failing to hire a reasonable, prudent and competent subcontractor, agent, apparent agent, employees and workers to design and construct the stairs, as alleged herein. 50. Additionally, as a general contractor, Defendant Neidlinger is vicariously liable to Plaintiffs for all damages suffered due to the negligence of Defendant Kenes, as alleged herein. 51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Neidlinger's direct and Vlcanous negligence and liability, Plaintiffs suffered all harm as alleged herein and claim is made therefor. 9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, , In an amount in excess of Twenty-five ($25,000) Thousand Dollars and any amount requiring compulsory arbitration and for all general and equitable relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court under the circumstances and for a trial by jury. COUNT III Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy v, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis 52. Paragraph one through forty-one of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 53. Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care to inspect the stairs in question and warn Plaintiffs of their dangerous, inadequate and unsafe condition, for which Defendants knew or should have known about prior to Plaintiffs accident, and breached this duty onto Plaintiffs and are therefore answerable for all damages suffered by Plaintiffs as alleged herein. 54. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendants were negligent and that their negligence caused all harm suffered by Plaintiffs and that Defendants were negligent in the following particulars: a. Allowing for the over cutting the stair stringers, thereby weakening the integrity of the staircase; b. Allowing for the use of split or otherwise damaged stringers; c. Allowing for the attempted repair of damaged or weakened stringers with nails; d. Allowing for the use of only two nails to connect the top of the stairs to the top header board of the staircase; e. Failing to inspect the staircase; 10 f. Failing to warn others of the dangerous design and construction of the staircase as alleged herein; g. Designing a staircase which was inherently weak and unsafe for reasons as alleged herein; h. Constructing an unsafe and unusable staircase for reasons as alleged herein; 1. Knowing or having reason to know of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein well before Plaintiffs accident and doing nothing to correct or warn about the condition; J. Defendants knew or should have known of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs well before Plaintiffs accident and should have taken corrective measures or warned about them, yet failed to do so; k. Defendants were placed on notice and had actual knowledge of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein well before Plaintiffs accident and should have taken corrective measures or warned about them, yet failed to do so; l. Defendants should have known of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein, had an adequate and appropriate inspection of the stairs been performed during or immediately following its construction, yet failed to do so; and m. Failing to hire a reasonable, prudent and competent subcontractor, agent, apparent agent, employees and workers to design and construct the stairs, as alleged herein. 11 55. Additionally, as property owners, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis are vicariously liable to Plaintiffs for all damages suffered due to the negligence of Defendants, Kenes and/or Neidlinger, as alleged herein. 56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' direct and vicarious negligence and liability, Plaintiffs suffered all harm as alleged herein and claim is made therefor. 57. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, in an amount in excess of Twenty-five ($25,000) Thousand Dollars and any amount requiring compulsory arbitration and for all general and equitable relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court under the circumstances and for a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, Date: 1-// -[}d- Michael J. N v.' sky, Esquire J.D. No. 58803 2040 Linglestown Road, Su te 303 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs 12 VERIFICATION I, Marrie Anne Cassidy, do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS 1?~ a,,~ (I ~ Marrie Anne Cassidy VERIFICATION I, Richard W. Cassidy, do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. P-J) w. a.~ Richard W. Cassidy WITNESS VERIFICATION I, Marrie Anne Cassidy, do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS 1?~ a,,~ (I ~ Marrie Anne Cassidy (") 0 0 N -n C .~{ s:: J:>o :-;: '" -0 () ;:gg::; :;u :.;:~F , Z~ ~g~ G ~ Z,,_ (..11 2..2 ~::r ':T: t. ::';:':0 -0 ;.) ::n ~ ..."> ..-.. ::3: "",C> ...... :2::" w om --0 >c ..-l ~ :E. ? Z .w ~ ::;l f" ..... , ~ ;V F:\FlLES\DATAFlLE\DONEGALDOC\196-ans.lltde Created: 02122/02 04:48:25 PM Revised': 0412510203~05:23PM 3050.196 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ADIN KENES AND NOW, comes Defendant, Adin Kenes, by and through his attorneys, MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, and denies the allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), except those that are admitted in the averments below: 1-45. Defendant Kenes is an experienced carpenter and builder in the Carlisle area. Defendant Kenes was hired by Defendant Neidlinger to assist in work on the residence of Defendants Kutulakis at 411 Barnstable Road, Carlisle. Part ofthat work involved the construction oftemporary stairs for the use of workmen. The stairs constructed by Defendant Kenes were constructed in a good, strong and workmanlike manner. Defendant Kenes was unaware of any split or other defect in the wood used to construct the stairs and does not believe there was any. Defendant Kenes did not perform any repairs to the stairs, nor does he believe any repairs were required prior to the incident in question; on the contrary, the stairs were regularly used by workmen, often carrying heavy objects and Defendant Kenes is unaware of any reason why the stairs should not have continued to support such workmen indefinitely. WHEREFORE, Defendant Adin Kenes demands judgment in his favor. NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIMS PURSUANT TO PA R,C.P. 2252 (d) 46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 47. Without admitting the truth thereof, Defendant Kenes incorporates Plaintiffs' allegations against the other Defendants for the sole purpose of stating a cross-claim for contribution and/or indemnity in the event Defendant Kenes is found liable to the Plaintiffs, such liability being expressly denied. WHEREFORE, in the event liability is found against Defendant Kenes, which liability is expressly denied, Defendant Kenes asserts that the other Defendants are jointly liable with Plaintiffs and/or liable over to Plaintiffs for contribution and/or indemnity as to any and all sums which may be awarded in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendant Kenes. MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By ~~ V\rJ1~ Thomas J. Will" s, Esquire LD. No. 17512 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Adin Kenes Dated: April 25, 2002 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Mr. Larry V. Neidlinger 595 Greason Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. Jason Kutulakis 411 Barnstable Road Carlisle, P A 17013 Mrs. Joanne Kutulakis 411 Barnstable Road Carlisle, P A 17013 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO ~~~ iO ~rJ~1 ncia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: April 25, 2002 (") s: -0& nlp ~2;' UJ..::.:' ;:s .~: ..,-c.=:' i>......, "";>-l__ ~(-, >c' z ~ ,. ~, o N "'" CJ CD N a-. o .'"/'1 -71 "1-"': I r.~'l ~) C1 ) , -jQ ~ :x ~~~:~ tl~ CI' . -; :ii -< c:- (.) F:IFILESIDATAFlLE\DONEGAL.D00196-pra. I1tde . Created: OU2210204:48:25PM Revised: 04125/021I:26:40AM 3050196 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS DefendantS JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Enter the appearance of MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO on behalf of Defendant, Adin Kenes. MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO "IA1J1~ s, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant Adin Kenes Dated: April 25, 2002 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Mr. Larry V. Neidlinger 595 Greason Road Carlisle, P A 17013 Mr. Jason Kutulakis 411 Barnstable Road Carlisle, P A 17013 Mrs. Joanne Kutu1akis 411 Barnstable Road Carlisle, P A 17013 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO ~//~ to !}~-/ cia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: April 25, 2002 o S -o6~ f1lfT 2:1:> Zc. U),.. ~C );: .c,O ~C') )> c:: :2 ~ <:;) N :n. ." :::'J N en o " "!"r ,- -1;'1"1 ;Cr ~:~ ~o -, ,~ 5J -< ~ ::.t: ~ (,.) '- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRlE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE PURSUANT TOPa.R.C.P. 1012 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, of Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, as attorneys for the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, in the above-captioned matter and mark the docket accordingly. BY Robert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: (717) 757-7602 Hl-:J Date: May 2, 2002 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2002, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) Jason P. and Joanne Kutulakis 8 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 obert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendant 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/neidlinger-P'l'.z "" (") 0 0 C N -n ?:: :ll: IJtT ;:...-ua lTln"'! -< Z::r" I 655.-. c....,) -<.cc '-0 V -- ~E 1'0 (,j c: --I Z :.n ?n =;! .-1 -< THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7100 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO.: 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance for Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, in the above-captioned case. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP J n Flounlacker, Esquire 1.0. Number: 73112 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)237-7134 Counsel for Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis Dated: S/lo(O~' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Jeannie L. Kawalec, an employee for the law firm Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance was served upon all counsel of record by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, on the date set forth below: Bv First Class U.S. Mail: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Suite 303 2040 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Dated: 5/to I D 2- " (") 0 0 C N -n s:: :.!: :::J -0 CD :;po ';: ~1 ::n mm -< ", ZXJ ..;3% ZC (.0.) en.: C) ::.> "< t~ .;j -TO ~ .J ""'0 ....- ..,.., ;P;C; ~: ;)-. =... (") )';2 ca (3m 3 N ~ , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy c/o Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 NOTICE TO PLEAD 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. ff1) BY Robert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: (717) 757-7602 Dated: C;(r0( Or IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: Adin Kenes c/o Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter and Cross- Claim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgme ay be entered against you. BY Ro ert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone; (717) 757-7602 D""" 311 Ie /6 ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis c/o John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 71 01 NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter and Cross- Claim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. m:J BY Rob A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: (717) 757-7602 Dated: n~ f (P I 2AJfJ 2--" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, LARRY V, NEIDLINGER, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, by his counsel Robert A. Lerman, Esquire and Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins and files the following Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim to Plaintiffs' Complaint: I. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted upon information and belief. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 5 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 6. Denied. It is denied that Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy were guests of Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis at the time ofthe accident. On the contrary, it is averred that to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, information and belief, Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy were employees, apparent agents, servants, workmen or volunteers working for and at the request of Defendants Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis at the time of the incident. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. II. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. II of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 2 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in 3 paragraph no. 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 18. Admitted to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, information and belief. 19. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Adin Kenes was hired or otherwise retained by Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to perform the work on behalf of Defendants Jason and Joanne Kutulakis. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendant Adin Kenes was hired or otherwise retained by Defendants Jason and Joanne Kutulakis and/or was an independent contractor retained by Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger at the request and with the approval of Defendants Jason and Joanne Kutulakis to perform work on behalf of Defendants Jason and Joanne Kutulakis. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 4 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 24. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, Adin Kenes, was retained by Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to design and construct the staircase in question for the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendant Adin Kenes was hired or otherwise retained by Defendants Jason and Joanne Kutulakis and/or was an independent contractor retained by Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger at the request of Defendants Jason and Joanne Kutulakis to design and construct the staircase in question at the request of and for the benefit of Defendants Jason and Joanne Kutulakis. 25. Denied. It is denied that at all material times herein, Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, was retained by Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis to accomplish certain renovations to their home. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, requested assistance and advice from Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, so that they could accomplish certain renovations to their home including but not limited to their hiring and retention of various contractors to perform the renovations to their home. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 27. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, at all times material herein, was contracted by Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, to perform renovations to their 5 home and was therefore an employee, agent, apparent agent, or servant of Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, requested assistance and advice from Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, so that they could accomplish certain renovations to their home including but not limited to their hiring and retention of various contractors to perform the renovations to their home. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, at all material times, was an employee, agent, apparent agent, or servant of Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 28. Denied. It is denied that Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis hired Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to renovate their home and further denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, hired Defendant, Adin Kenes, to assist in those renovations. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, requested assistance and advice from Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, so that they could accomplish certain renovations to their home including but not limited to their hiring and retention of various contractors to perform the renovations to their home. It is also averred that Defendant Adin Kenes was hired or otherwise retained by Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, and/or was an independent contractor retained by Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, at the request and with the approval of Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, to perform work on behalf of Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, was at all material times or at any time an employee, agent, apparent agent or servant of Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 29. Denied. It is denied that at all material times herein that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, acted to benefit Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, with respect to the renovations 6 ongoing to the Kutulakis home and was compensated for doing so. On the contrary, it is averred that the assistance and advice which Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, provided to the Kutulakis Defendants was limited to providing voluntary assistance, gratuitously, in connection with cleanup of their residence after a fire loss, and to assist and advise them in the selection and retention of various contractors to perform restorations and renovations to their home, for which Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, received no direct compensation. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, was at all material times or at any time an employee, agent, apparent agent or servant of Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Kutulakis, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 30. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, had actual knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition of the staircase, designed and constructed by Defendant Kenes as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, well before the accident in question and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. By way of further answer, it is denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, had any knowledge, actual or otherwise, of the alleged dangerous condition of the temporary staircase and strict proof is hereby demanded. 31. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 31 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent an answer is required, it is denied that despite this alleged knowledge, Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, failed to take any action to correct the alleged dangerous condition of the staircase designed and constructed by Defendant Kenes as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint or to warn invitees of the staircase's alleged dangerous and defective condition and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. By way of further answer, it is denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, had any knowledge, actual or otherwise, of the alleged dangerous condition of the temporary staircase and strict proof is hereby demanded. 7 32. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiffs' belief. By way of further answer, it is averred that Answering Defendant did not design or construct the temporary stairway in question and such design and construction, and any reasonable inspection of same, was the responsibility of Defendant, Adin Kenes. By way of further Answer, it is averred that to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, the temporary stairs in question were used regularly by workmen, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs, on the site and Answering Defendant is unaware of any defect in materials and/or workmanship with respect to the temporary stairs in question and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 33. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph no. 33 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is averred that Answering Defendant fulfilled any and all duties and responsibilities owed to the Plaintiffs or persons in the position of the Plaintiff, as required by law, and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 34. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph no. 34 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is averred that Answering Defendant fulfilled any and all duties and responsibilities owed to the Plaintiffs or persons in the position of the Plaintiff, as required by law, and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. By way of further Answer, it is averred that Answering Defendant breached no duty of care, if owed, to the Plaintiffs and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant IS without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in 8 paragraph no. 35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 37 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 38 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 39 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 9 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph no. 41 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit. COUNT I Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W, Cassidy y, Adin Kenes 42. - 45. The allegations set forth in paragraph nos. 42, 43, 44, and 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to a Defendant other than Answering Defendant and no response is required on behalf of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit. COUNT II Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W, Cassidy y, Larry y, Neidlinger 46. The allegations set forth in I through 45, inclusive, of the foregoing Answer of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to Plaintiffs' Complaint, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 47. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph no. 47 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is averred that Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, fulfilled any and all duty or duties of reasonable care owed to the Plaintiff or persons in the position of the Plaintiff. It is further averred that to the extent it is determined that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, had any 10 duties or responsibilities by virtue of a verbal agreement with Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, in connection with fire restoration work, renovation work, and the construction of a new addition on their residence, such duties and responsibilities were prudently, lawfully and properly fulfilled as required under the law. 48. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Neidlinger, breached any duty of care owed to Plaintiffs and it is denied that Answering Defendant is responsible for Plaintiffs' damages as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. On the contrary, it is averred that at all times relevant, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, fulfilled any and all duties and responsibilities owed to Plaintiffs or persons in the position of the Plaintiff, as required by law and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 49. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Neidlinger was negligent and that his negligence caused Plaintiffs' harm and it is specifically denied that Defendant Neidlinger was negligent in the following particulars: a. Allowing for the over cutting the stair stringers, thereby weakening the integrity of the staircase; b. Allowing for the use of split or otherwise damaged stringers; c. Allowing for the attempted repair of damaged or weakened stringers with nails; d. Allowing for the use of only two nails to connect the top of the stairs to the top header board of the staircase; e. Failing to inspect the staircase; f. Failing to warn others of the dangerous design and construction of the staircase as alleged therein; 11 g. Designing a staircase which was inherently weak and unsafe for reasons as alleged herein; h. Constructing an unsafe and unusable staircase for reasons as alleged herein; 1. Knowing or having reason to know of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein well before Plaintiff s accident and doing nothing to correct or warn about the condition; J. Knew or should have known of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs well before Plaintiffs accident and should have taken corrective measures or warned about them, yet failed to do so; k. Was placed on notice and had actual knowledge of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein well before Plaintiff s accident and should have taken corrective measures or warned about them, yet failed to do so; l. Should have known of the inadequate and unsafe design and construction of the stairs as alleged herein, had adequate and appropriate inspection of the stairs been performed during or immediately following its construction, yet failed to do so; and m. Failing to hire a reasonable, prudent and competent subconstractor, agent, apparent agent, employees and workers to design and construct the stairs, as alleged herein. On the contrary it is averred, to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, the temporary stairway in question, including its design and construction, and any required or reasonable inspection of same, was the responsibility of Defendant, Adin Kenes. By way of further Answer, it is averred that to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, the temporary stairs in question were used regularly by workmen, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs, on the site 12 and Answering Defendant is unaware of any defect in materials and/or workmanship with respect to the temporary stairs in question and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. By way of further Answer it is specifically denied that Defendant, Adin Kenes, as the agent, apparent agent, employee or workman of Additional Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 50. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph no. 50 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is averred that at all times relevant, Defendant, Adin Kenes, was an independent contractor and not an employee, servant, agent, apparent agent, or workman of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. By way of further Answer, it is denied that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is vicariously liable to Plaintiffs for alleged damages due to the negligence of Defendant Kenes and averred, on the contrary that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is not liable for any alleged negligence attributable to independent contractor Defendant Kenes. By way of further Answer, it is also averred that at all times relevant, and to the extent it is determined that Defendant Neidlinger selected or assisted the Kutulakis Defendants in the selection of independent contractor, Adin Kenes, Defendant Neidlinger exercised prudent, reasonable and due care in such selection and that to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, Defendant Kenes had the reputation of being a careful, competent and prudent contractor. 51. Denied. It is denied that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Neidlinger's direct and vicarious negligence and liability, Plaintiff suffered the harm as alleged in their Complaint for which claim is made. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is not liable for any alleged negligence attributable to independent contractor 13 Defendant Kenes. By way of further Answer, it is also averred that at all times relevant, and to the extent it is determined that Defendant Neidlinger selected or assisted the Kutulakis Defendants in the selection of independent contractor, Adin Kenes, Defendant Neidlinger exercised prudent, reasonable and due care in such selection and that to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, Defendant Kenes had the reputation of being a careful, competent and prudent contractor. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit. COUNT III Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W, Cassidy Y. Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis 52. - 56. The allegations set forth in paragraph nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, and 56 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to a Defendant other than Answering Defendant and no response is required on behalf of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit. By way of further answer, Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, asserts the following New Matter. NEW MATTER 57. Answering Defendant's responses to paragraph I through 56, inclusive, of Plaintiffs' Complaint, as set forth hereinabove, are incorporated herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length. 58. Plaintiffs' Complaint against Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 14 59. Plaintiffs' Complaint may be barred by applicable statutes oflimitation. 60. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred and/or limited by the doctrines of Res Judicata and/or Collateral Estoppel. 61. Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as the result of the activities and/or conduct and/or omissions on the part of individuals or entities other than Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, over whom Answering Defendant had no responsibility or right of control, including but not limited to Adin Kenes, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis. 62. At all times relevant, no agency, principal/agent master/servant, or employer/employee relationship existed between Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, and Defendant, Adin Kenes. 63. At all times relevant, Adin Kenes was an independent contractor, hired and retained by Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, not subject to the right of supervision, direction or right of control by Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger. 64. At all times relevant, Adin Kenes was an independent contractor, not subject to the right of supervision, direction or control or right of control by Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger. 65. At all times relevant, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, was not liable for the alleged acts or omissions of Defendant, Adin Kenes. 66. To the extent it is determined that Larry V. Neidlinger assisted the Kutulakis Defendants in the selection of independent contractor Adin Kenes, or selected or recommended independent contractor Adin Kenes with the approval of the Kutulakis Defendants, at all times relevant, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, was not liable for the alleged acts or 15 omissions of Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, in their selection of, or their approval of the selection of Defendant Kenes. 67. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs Marrie Anne Cassidy and/or Richard W. Cassidy were employees, agents, servants, workmen or representatives of Defendants, Jason and Joanne Kutulakis, performing services and/or providing assistance, at the request of the Kutulakis Defendants, on the construction site when the accident occurred. 68. Plaintiffs Marrie Anne Cassidy and/or Richard W. Cassidy were otherwise retained by Defendants Jason and/or Joanne Kutulakis and were, at all times relevant, acting at the request of and pursuant to the direction of, and on behalf of the Kutulakis Defendants at the construction site. 69. At all times relevant, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, exercised reasonable, prudent and due care in either selecting independent contractor Adin Kenes or recommending Defendant Kenes to the Kutulakis Defendants, and to the best of Answering Defendant's knowledge, Defendant Kenes had the reputation to be a careful and competent contractor to perform the work in question, in a good and workmanlike manner including, but not limited to the design, construction and inspection of the temporary staircase in question. 70. Plaintiffs may have assumed the risk of the injuries and damages which they allege in their Complaint. 71. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligent Statute. 72. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of superceding and/or intervening cause. 73. Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages. 16 74. To the extent it is determined that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, owed any duties or responsibilities to the Kutulakis Defendants, Answering Defendant fulfilled any and all such duties and responsibilities determined to be owed to Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis. 75. To the extent it is determined that Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, owed any duties or responsibilities to the Plaintiffs, Answering Defendant fulfilled any and all such duties and responsibilities determined to be owed to the Plaintiffs or persons in the position of the Plaintiffs as required by law. 76. Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is informed and therefore avers, that Jason Kutulakis was the General Contractor with regard to the restoration of the original portion of he and his wife's, Joanne Kutulakis, home, as well as with respect to the new addition that was attached to their said home, and as such General Contractor Jason Kutulakis was responsible for the hiring of Adin Kenes and other sub-contractors who were working on this project and furthermore was responsible and therefore had the duty to oversee that all of the said sub- contractors' work, including that of Adin Kenes, was performed in a good, workmanlike and safe manner, including the design, construction and installation of the temporary staircase allegedly involved in this matter. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit. NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO PA,R.C.P. 2252(d) Larry V. Neidlin2er y, Adin Kenes 77. Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, incorporates herein by reference, and without admission or denial, Plaintiffs' allegations against the other Defendants for the sole and limited 17 purpose of stating a crossclaim for contribution and/or indemnity in the event Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is found liable to the Plaintiffs, all such liability being expressly denied. 78. Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, incorporates herein by reference his Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint as hereinabove set forth. 79. If the incident as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint IS proven at trial, then Defendant, Adin Kenes, is solely liable to the Plaintiffs. 80. At all times relevant, Defendant, Adin Kenes, was solely responsible for the design, construction and inspection of the temporary stairway which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and said Defendant's design, construction and inspection of the temporary stairway in question was in no way subject to control or the right of control by or on behalf of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger. 81. In the alternative, if the incident described in Plaintiffs' Complaint is proven at the time of trial, Defendant, Adin Kenes, is jointly and/or severally liable to Answering Defendant or liable over to Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, for the claims of Plaintiffs, the liability of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, being expressly denied. 82. If Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is found liable to Plaintiffs, all such liability being expressly denied, his liability is secondary and passive to the liability of Defendant, Adin Kenes, whose liability is primary and active. 83. Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is not liable or responsible for the alleged acts or omissions of independent contractor, Adin Kenes, and strict proof of such allegations as outlined in Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Adin Kenes, for any sums which may be adjudged against him and 18 in favor of the Plaintiffs; or, in the alternative, demands judgment against Defendant, Adin Kenes, for contribution and/or indemnification for the appropriate part of the amount of damages and costs awarded to Plaintiffs, if any. NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P, 2252(d) Larry V, Neidlinger Y. Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis 84. Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, incorporates herein by reference, and without admission or denial, Plaintiffs' allegations against the other Defendants for the sole purpose of stating a crossclaim for contribution and/or indenmity in the event Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is found liable to the Plaintiffs, all such liability being expressly denied. 85. Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, incorporates herein by reference his Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint as hereinabove set forth. 86. If the incident as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint IS proven at trial, then Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, are solely liable to the Plaintiffs. 87. In the alternative, if the incident described in Plaintiffs' Complaint is proven at the time of trial, Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, are jointly and/or severally liable to Answering Defendant or liable over to Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, for the claims of Plaintiffs, the liability of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, being expressly denied. 88. If Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is found liable to Plaintiffs, all such liability being expressly denied, his liability is secondary and passive to the liability of Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, whose liability is primary and active. 89. Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, is not liable or responsible for the alleged acts or omissions of Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, and strict proof of such allegations as outlined in Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby demanded. 19 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, for any sums which may be adjudged against him and in favor of the Plaintiffs; or, in the alternative, demands judgment against Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, for contribution and/or indemnification for the appropriate part of the amount of damages and costs awarded to Plaintiffs, if any. Dated: sf, {; I b -z.-..-- BY Robert A. Lerman, Supreme C Attorney for the Defendant, Larry V. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: (717) 757-7602 20 VERIFICATION I, Larry V. Neidlinger, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief as well as reports, records, conferences and other . . ' lllvesbgatory material made available to me. To the extent that the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact, I verity that my knowledge or information is sufficient to form a belief that one or more of them is true, although I am currently unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true. To the extent that the foregoing contains legal conclusions or opinions, I hereby state that my Verification is made upon the advice of counsel, upon whom I have relied in the filing this document. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904 related to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: S!tttjo).- ~~. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY , Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ltJ ~ of May, 2002, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certity that I have this date served a copy of the Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, To Plaintiffs' Complaint by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17 II 0 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) BY: Ro ert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/neidlinger-answer.z ~ ~ c, uJ ::,-> ;;-~) t".~ l._~_ -~,-- ~:~1l(_, 01:. i...;.--'.-- ."..1 Li- ~ :c O._~ u~ () ," ?: 2: ? ~<f, C)'7 rO ""1"':;- ......."".... -~ ~ . il"! .J..:- 1~t: ";: ',elLd ;<\(1_ 5 (;) ?- II!,:,:.". :c ('"' CJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF DEFENDANT. LARRY V. NEIDLINGER. TO NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIMS PURSUANT TO PA,R.C.P. 2252(d) OF DEFENDANT. ADIN KENES AND NOW COMES the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, by his counsel Robert A. Lerman, Esquire and Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins and files the following Reply to New Matter Crossc1aims of Defendant, Adin Kenes, as follows: 46. Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, his Answer, New Matter and Crossclaims filed in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 47. No response is required. To the extent a response is required, Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, his Answer, New Matter and Crossc1aims filed in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, demands judgment in his favor and against Co-Defendant, Adin Kenes, together with cost of suit. Respectfully submitted, Date: 5/1 (p 16'"2-- BY Robert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone: (717) 757-7602 :=J 2 VERIFICATION I, Larry V. Neidlinger, hereby verity that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) of Defendant, Adin Kenes are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief, as well as reports, records, conferences and other investigatory material made available to me. To the extent that the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact, I verity that my knowledge or information is sufficient to form a belief that one or more of them is true, although I am currently unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true. To the extent that the foregoing contains legal conclusions or opinions, I hereby state that my Verification is made upon the advice of counsel, upon whom I have relied in the filing this document. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 9 4904 related to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: SI/6,10:;l..... ~~,- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ''fh AND NOW, this ~day of May, 2002, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certity that I have this date served a copy of the Reply of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, To New Matter Crossclaims Pursuant Pa.R.C.P. 2252(D) of Defendant, Adin Kenes by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) By: Ro ert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/neidlinger -reply.z >- '-1; ...-:1.. ,..... tJJQ ~~;:. (;)2~ elL UJf ."'''~ Li~ IL U C"') ~ ~~ u;~ -~ Cl::::J ,c..>- ::.' if) ~)z :.cz UJLU '1,10... oor.::; a ...-. .'...~. ,-~ r- >- -.::: ,,",y- -- C'.J o F:\FILES\DAT AFILE\DONEGALDOC\196-ans.2/tde Created: 02/22/0204:48:25 PM Revised: .05120/0203:36:44 PM 3050.196 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CNIL ACTION - LAW NO. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT ADIN KENES AND NOW, comes Defendant, Adin Kenes, by and through his attorneys, MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, and avers as follows in reply to New Matter in the Nature of a Cross Claim pursuant to Pa. R.c.P. 2252 (d) filed on behalf of Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger: 77-83. Denied as a conclusion of law. By way of further answer, Defendant Kenes incorporates his answer to Plaintiff Complaint herein by reference thereto. WHEREFORE, Defendant Kenes demands judgment in his favor with respect to the cross claim against him filed by Defendant Neidlinger. MARTS9N DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By f~1I-v '\Jv Ji- Thomas J. Willi s, Esquire J.D. No. 17512 Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Adin Kenes Dated: May 20, 2002 VERIFICATION Thomas J. WilIams, of the firm of MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, attorneys for Defendant Adin Kenes in the within action, certifies that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter in the Nature of a Cross Claim of Defendant Adin Kenes are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas J. Williams CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 Robert A. Lerman, Esquire GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 John Flounlacker, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO ~~1~ rJ) ~(}a/ Tricia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: May 20, 2002 (") c S "'0 OJ nl IT' -:7 -r' Zc-- en " -<7 r;:::C 1> -, ZC .::-:() )> c': :z. =2 o N :It ):;>0 -<: N o .1 --I ;J:;11 I;r- ~",'...rn :'~ ;J l~ ') -;'JS;!, ""_"'7'"" ;~~ S S5 -< :n> :x 9 '....) N IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~day of May, 2002, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LER,,1y1AN, SOL ThlOS & CALKINS, hereby certity that I have this date served a copy of the INTERROGATORlES/REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANT, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, TO PLAINTIFFS, SET NO.1, as by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) BY: R bert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/neidlinger-int.z (") c <" "'QU) nlrn ?'" -r~ Z:r (f) ;;r~; -<,; r:;C,; ):;:c.' 6(-) Pc Z =< o N :J: - -< N (...) o -1 --i :',. ;JJ ., r- r".lrn :)9 ;?o ~lJ'Ti :~"') :J] :c;:'Cl bin -I ?D -< -0 -,..~ N :.n (J'\ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-01846 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CASSIDY MARRIE ANNE ET AL VS KENES ADIN ET AL DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon NEIDLINGER LARRY V the DEFENDANT , at 2000:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of April , 2002 at 595 GREASON ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to MARY JO NEIDLINGER, WIFE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 4.14 .00 10.00 .00 20.14 So Answers: r~<#-e R. Thomas Kline 04/29/2002 NAVITSKY OLSON WISNESKI Sworn and Subscribed to before By: \J~~ ~ Deputy Sheriff me this I~ day of 7'vt"'! d-OvL A.D. ~. Ofn"h., ~ rothonotary , SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-01846 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CASSIDY MARRIE ANNE ET AL VS KENES ADIN ET AL KATHY CLARKE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon KUTULAKIS JASON the DEFENDANT , at 1535:00 HOURS, on the 23rd day of April at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ , 2002 CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to JASON KUTALAKIS 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 So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 ~~~~~ R. Thomas Kline me this 1M-- day of 04/29/2002 NAVITSKY OLSON WISNESKI <~~ De ty Sheriff By: Sworn and Subscribed to before ~.~~ A.D. . . O. )n./j,..J Prothonotary . Aifz:Ii SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-01846 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CASSIDY MARRIE ANNE ET AL VS KENES ADIN ET AL KATHY CLARKE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon KUTULAKIS JOANNE the DEFENDANT at 1535:00 HOURS, on the 23rd day of April , 2002 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to JASON KUTULAKIS, HUSBAND AND ATTORNEY FOR JOANNE KUTULAKIS 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 So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 r~~~ R. Thomas Kline Sworn and Subscribed to before 04/29/2002 NAVITSKY OLSON WISNESKI By: ~I-h" ~ 'V~~ty Sheriff me this 1>>- day of ~ .201.)..; A.D. o;-,-,(2~.# rothonotary CASE NO: 2002-01846 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CASSIDY MARRIE ANNE ET AL VS KENES ADIN ET AL CHIEF DEPUTY RONNY R. ANDERSON, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon KENES ADIN the DEFENDANT , at 0910:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of April at CUMBERLANC CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQ CARLISLE, PA 17013 , 2002 by handing to GEORGE FALLER JR, ATTORNEY FOR ADIN KENES 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 Aff idavi t Surcharge 18.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 28.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this I~ day of ~ d..1>-O:L A.D. ~ D /k,/P. .~ rothonotary . So Answers: r~~ R. Thomas Kline THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7100 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF CEMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUlrTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO.: 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and : JOANNE KUTULAKIS : JURY TRIAL DEMAN~ED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO ALL PARTIES: YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within N~w Matter within twenty I (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may ~e entered against you. Respectfully sUbmitte~, I i THOMAS, THOMAS ~ HAFER, LLP Date: "'(1110 L-- By: John Flounlacker, squire Attorney I.D. # 73112 P.O. Box 999 : 305 N. Front Stree~ Harrisburg, PA 171108-0999 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER. LLP John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7100 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF OMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COU . TV, PENNSYLVANIA v. i CIVIL ACTION - LAW I NO.: 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS JURY TRIAL DEMAN~ED I Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, who, in Ans~er to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, respectfully represent that: DEFENDANTS, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE UTULAKIS, ANSWER WITH NEW MA ITER TO PLAINTIFFS' C MPLAINT AND NOW ONTO COURT, through undersigne~ counsel, comes the I I 1. It is admitted the Plaintiffs are who they say they are.' 2. The averments in this paragraph are directed tow~rds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 3. The averments in this paragraph are directed towdrds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 4. Admitted. I 5. Denied as stated. By way of further explanation, lit is admitted that the events regarding the incident averred to in the Plaintiffs' Com~laint occurred at 411 I Barnstable Road in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. : I I I 6. Admitted. 7. The averments in this paragraph are denied genera Iy in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. The averments in this paragraph are denied genera ~y in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Admitted. , 10. The averments in this paragraph are denied generally in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. The averments in this paragraph are denied general~ in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. The averments in this paragraph are denied generally in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. The averments in this paragraph are denied generally in accordance with I Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. The averments in this paragraph are denied generallf in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 15. The averments in this paragraph are denied generall* in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). , 16. The averments in this paragraph are denied generall~ in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 2 17. The averments in this paragraph are denied generallly in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 18. The averments in this paragraph are directed tO'1ards another party and , I I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 19. The averments in this paragraph are directed t1rdS another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. : 20. The avennents in th~ paragraph are directed t4rdS another party and I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. , 21. The avennents in this paragraph are directed t01rdS another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. I I 22. The averments in this paragraph are directed towrrds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. ! I 23. The averments in this paragraph are directed tow~rds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. I I I 24. The averments in this paragraph are directed towtrds another party and I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. ' i , I I I I 26. Denied as stated. By way of further eXPlanati1n, it is admitted that Defendant, Adin Kenes, did various construction work at the prfperty identified in the Plaintiffs' Complaint on behalf of the Answering Defendants. 25. Admitted. 3 27. Denied as stated. By way of further explanation, it is admitted that the Answering Defendants employed Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger, to perform certain construction work at the property identified in the Plaintiffs' Compl~int. I 28. Denied as stated. By way of further explanation thJ Answering Defendants , admit that at all times relevant to the incident referred to in the ~'aintiffs' Complaint that I Defendants Kenes and Neidlinger were both working at the ptoperty identified in the . I Plaintiffs' Complaint for the Answering Defendants' benefit. 29. Denied as stated. By way of further explanation th, Answering Defendants admit that at all times relevant to the incident referred to in the ~Iaintiffs' Complaint that Defendants Kenes and Neidlinger were both working at the p~perty identified in the i I Plaintiffs' Complaint for the Answering Defendants' benefit. 30. Answering Defendants submit that the allegation~ contained within this , I paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answe~ Where an Answer is , I deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answ~ring Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the iruth of the averments i , contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict Iproof being demanded I I at trial, if relevant. By way of further explanation, it is specihcally denied that the Answering Defendants had actual knowledge of the dangerous c~nditions as outlined in I I this paragraph of the Plaintiffs' Complaint. By way of further expl~nation, the Answering I Defendants submit that the remains of the averments in this par~graph are directed to I other parties and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defrndants. I I I I I 4 31. Answering Defendants submit that the allegations contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no ansWer. By way of further explanation the Answering Defendants aver that the allegations made against them within this paragraph of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied The averme~ts in this paragraph are denied generally in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By w~y of further explanation i ! the remains of the averments in this paragraph are directed towards another party and I I I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. , I , 32. Answering Defendants submit that the allegationb contained within this i paragraph regarding reasonable and prudent inspection with repard to the design and construction of this stairway amount to legal conclusions which Irequire no answer. By , way of further explanation, Answering Defendants deny the remJins of the averments in I this paragraph generally in accordance with PaRC.P. 1029(e). I I 33. Answering Defendants submit that the allegation~ contained within this I paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no answe~. Where an Answer is ! deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Ans+ring Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the ~ruth of the averments I contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, stricti proof being demanded I at trial, if relevant. i , 34. Answering Defendants submit that the allegation~ contained within this I I paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no answer) Where an Answer is I I deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answfring Defendants lack I information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the ~ruth of the averments I I I I ! 5 contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 35. Answering Defendants submit that any allegatiol'1s contained within this paragraph of the Plaintiffs' Complaint regarding the AnswerinJ Defendants being the I direct and/or proximate cause for the Plaintiffs' injuries amount to Ilegal conclusions which require no answer. By way of further explanation, Answering Detndants submit that the remains of the averments in this paragraph are denied as after r,asonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient ito form a basis to the , I belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph ~nd same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 36. The allegations in this paragraph are denied as after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lack information or knowled~e sufficient to form a I basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in thIs paragraph and same I are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if releva1t. 37. The allegations in this paragraph are denied as after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack information or knowle1ge sufficient to form a basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in th~ paragraph and same I are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevan~. I I 38. The allegations in this paragraph are denied! as after reasonable I I investigation, Answering Defendant lack information or knowled1e sufficient to form a basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in thir paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. I I I 6 I I ..--;..........--- 39. The allegations in this paragraph are denied as after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in t~is paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if releva~t. 40. The allegations in this paragraph are deniedl as after reasonable i investigation, Answering Defendants lack information or knowle~ge sufficient to form a basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in t~iS paragraph and same I are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if releva~t. 41. The allegations in this paragraph are denied I as after reasonable I investigation, Answering Defendants lack information or knOWle~ge sufficient to form a I basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in th,s paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if releva1t. COUNT I Marrie Anne Cassid and Richard W. Cassid v, A en Kenes 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of Defendants' Answer ~re incorporated herein , , I and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. I I 43. The averments in this paragraph are directed tow~rds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. , I 44. The averments in this paragraph are directed towJrds another party and I I I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. , I 45. The averments in this paragraph are directed towa~ds another party and I I I I I I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 7 COUNT II Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W, Cassidy v. Larry V. Neidlinaer 46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. I 47. The averments in this paragraph are directed to~ards another party and I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 48. The averments in this paragraph are directed towlards another party and I I therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 49. The averments in this paragraph are directed tow~rds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 50. The averments in this paragraph are directed towrrds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. 51. The averments in this paragraph are directed tow~rds another party and therefore no answer is required of Answering Defendants. COUNT II Marrie Anne Cassid and Richard W. Cassi v. Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis I I 52. Paragraphs 1 through 51 of Defendants' Answer ~re incorporated herein I I I I I I 53. The Answering Defendants' submit that the allegatiors contained within this paragraph of the Plaintiffs' Complaint amount to legal conclus~ons which require no I Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after rebsonable investigation, and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Answering Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the 8 truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 54. The Answering Defendants submit that the allegatic;>ns contained within this I paragraph amount to The averments contained within this par graph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is dee ed to be required, atter reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack informatio or knowledge sufficient I i to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this *aragraph and same are I therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. : I It is specifically denied that the Answering Defen~ants were negligent for I allowing for the over cutting the stair stringers, thereby weakering the integrity of the I I I (a) staircase; , I (b) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defen~ants were negligent for allowing for the use of spit or otherwise damaged stringers; , I (c) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defen~ants were negligent for ! i allowing for the attempted repair of damages or weakened stringers with nails; I I (d) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defen~nts were negligent for I allowing for the use of only two nails to connect the top of the ~tairs to the top header , board of the staircase; (e) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defend~nts were negligent for ! I I failing to inspect the staircase; 9 , ,- (f) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent for failing to warn others of the dangerous design and construction of the staircase as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. I I (g) It is specifically denied that the Answering Def~ndants were negligent designing a staircase which was inherently weak and unsafe f+ reasons as alleged in I Plaintiffs' Complaint. ! (h) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defeniants were negligent for constructing an unsafe and unusable staircase for reasons s alleged in Plaintiffs' I I Complaint. (J) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defend nts were negligent for knowing or having reason to know of the inadequate and unsafe esign and construction of the stairs as alleged herein well before Plaintiff's accident and oing nothing to correct or warn about the condition; I (m) It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendrnts were negligent for failing to hire a reasonable, prudent and competent subcontra tor, agent, apparently agent, employees and workers to design and construct the stairs, as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 55. The averments contained within this paragraph amo nt to legal conclusions which require no Answer. By way of further answer the allegatio s in this paragraph are denied as after reasonable investigation, answering Defenda ts lack information or I knowledge sufficient to form a basis to the belief as to the 'ih ot the averments 10 contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 56. The averments contained within this paragraph amq>unt to legal conclusions , which require no answer. By way of further explanation, AnsweriJg Defendants reference I I by incorporation all of the answers plead in response to the alleg~d harms suffered by the I Plaintiffs as outlined in other locations contained within their Com~laint. I 57. The averments contained within this paragraph amqunt to legal conclusions I which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be r~uired, after reasonable I I investigation, Answering Defendants lack information or knowlebge sufficient to form a I I belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph I and same are therefore I , , denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2 52 58. If Plaintiffs are able to prove the alleged allegation within their Complaint I then the Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, In accordance with the I Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure of 2252(d) hereby join, ~s additional defendant, I Adin Kenes, for the purpose of contribution and/or indemnification I hereby averments said i additional defendants are alone liable to Plaintiffs, is liable over to join Defendants or is I I I jointly or severally liable to/with the joined Defendants. : NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P, 2~,.g 59. If Plaintiffs are able to prove the alleged allegation~ within their Complaint I then the Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, i~ accordance with the I Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure of 2252(d) hereby join, ~s additional defendant, I I I I I , 11 __~..i,...._.._~..___.. Larry V. Neidlinger, for the purpose of contribution and/or indemnification, hereby averments said additional defendants are alone liable to Plaintiffs, is liable over to join Defendants or is jointly or severally liable tolwith the joined Defen,ants. NEW MATTER I I 60. Answering Defendants were not negligent. I I 61. Answering Defendants owed no duty to the Plaintiffsf 62. Any conduct and/or negligence on the part of the AnrWering Defendants did not amount to a substantial cause for the Plaintiffs injuries. ! I 63. Some and/or all of the Plaintiffs' claims may be reduced and/or barred I I based on the Plaintiffs own comparative negligence. : 64. The negligent acts or omissions of other individu~IS and/or entities may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. Wherefore, Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutu akis, hereby pray that the Complaint be dismissed, at the costs of Plaintiffs, or in the a ternative, for the relief alleged in Paragraphs 58 and 59 above. Date:f;:/ / y/6 <- Respectfully submitted I I THOMAS, THOMAS' HAFER, LLP By: John Flounlacker, squire Attorney 1.0. # 731 2 P.O. Box 999 1 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17 08-0999 (717)237-7134 I I 12 I VERIFICATION I, Defendant, Joanne Kutulakis, hereby state that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the , best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigntd understands that the I statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.<:;.S.A. 94904 relating to I I I I , unsworn falsification to authorities. I I ..J~,<~JG JOANNE KUTULAKIS I I I I I -------! VERIFICATION I, Defendant, Jason Kutulakis, hereby state that thei statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are tru, and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The underSigne1 understands that the I statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 pa'j.SA ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Jeannie L. Kawalec, an employee for the law firm Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the for~going document(s) was seNed upon all counsel of record by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, on the date set forth below: By First Class U.S. Mail: Michael J. NaYitsky, Esquire Suite 303 2040 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Stricker, Lerman, et al. 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes Dated: to I' vi 0 1- ~_",-_"""~"",,,_,.,"-."-,-,_.: (") C':) 0 C f', '-0- =<"' , "1:) I ~r'" (-: ".,l n-, ~~'i II ~ r-- L::" ~ :-;~ ::3 en '"'--." -.J -< ....:::.- C't .!-, r. CJ ---~l ~ .T:~ -';i Z (~ ::~ ;:-) :') :s::; 0 r0 ;2. nl c: 0 z -..., =<! .:.n ~ &" -< MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA NO. 02-1846 Civil Term v. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants CNIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS. JASON AND JOA..l'lNE KUTULAKIS 60. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Defendants were negligent. Plaintiffs reiterate and reaver the allegations of their Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 61. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Defendants owed a legal duty to the Plaintiffs. 62. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Defendants' negligence was a substantial cause of the Plaintiffs' injuries. 63. The allegations constitute conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiffs were not negligent in any fashion. 64. The allegations constitute conclusions oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Defendants' negligence caused or contributed to the cause of Plaintiffs' injuries. Plaintiffs reiterate and reaver the allegations of their Complaint as if set forth herein at length. Respectfully submitted, rJ.q, JOO a- MidI el J. N v J.D. No. 58 0 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 3 3 Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND I, MICHAEL J. NA VITSKY, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I am counsel for Plaintiffs, Marrie Ann Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy, and I am authorized to make this affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiffs, and verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Response to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, or are true and correct based on the information obtained from Plaintiffs. Sworn and subscribed before me this ;l/Ih day of --- -J u ne. ,2002. ~t.~ Notary Public CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessie K. Walsh, an employee ofthe law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, do hereby certify that I am this ;Jlf1%lay of June, 2002 serving a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Kutulakis' New Matter upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for Defendants Kutulakis' ~ 1<l~r; iliA Jessie K. Walsh 3 . THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7100 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. ADlN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO.: 02-1846 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS, TO DEFENDANT, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER'S NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO PA.R.C,P 2252(d) AND NOW ONTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes the Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, who, in Answer to the New Matter in Nation of Crossclaim of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, respectfully represent that: 57. The Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference, without admission or denial, the allegations and responses that the Defendant made in response to the Plaintiff's allegations and other Defendants that are referenced by Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger. By way of further explanation, the Answering Defendant avers that the remains of the averments in this paragraph are legal conclusions which require no answer. 58. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 59. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 60. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 61. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 62. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 2 63. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 64. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 65. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 66. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 67. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a 3 belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 68. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 69. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 70. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 71. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 4 72. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 73. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 74. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 75. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 76. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a 5 belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 84. The Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference, without admission or denial, the allegations and responses that the Defendant made in response to the Plaintiff's allegations and other Defendants that are referenced by Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger. By way of further explanation, the Answering Defendant avers that the remains of the averments in this paragraph are legal conclusions which require no answer. 85. The Answering Defendant submits that the allegations contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. 86. Denied. 87. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 88. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which requrre no -Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 89. The averments contained within this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable 6 investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. Wherefore, Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, hereby pray that the Complaint be dismissed, at the costs of Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, for the relief alleged in Paragraphs 58 and 59 Of Defendants Answer with New Matter. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: By: Jo Flounlacker, Es uire Attorney I.D. # 73112 P.O. Box 999 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7134 7 VERIFICATION I, Defendant, Jason Kutulakis, hereby state that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Defendant Neidlinger's New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. VERI FICA TION ~ I, Defendant, J.aeon Kutulakis, hereby state that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Defendant Neidlinger's New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~a4 ~ KUTULAKIS ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Hafer, LLP, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) was I. Jeannie L. Kawalec, an employee for the law firm Thomas, Thomas & served upon all counsel of record by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, on the date set forth below: By First Class U.S. Mail: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Suite 303 2040 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Stricker, Lerman, et al. 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP -'/1(02.... Dated: I >- C" ) >- 2'': c: \-- ;,,< 1-.... ::> <:!:: C~ ("0 I L! '....... Z c ) ,....., ,j ~ \0..-,..... :".':1 ('...} '-.::' '.0 C".J 7 Z ~,~~ LU -' Cl.. , -) I ('",J :5 C) CJ (.) ~_.........--,-------'- ----- -'~"-'~'''''''''''''-''-----~ (") C~~ , I C 1........-' , 7 '- -0 0: ,- 0 .. " ;,?:~ l :"0 en - Ll _/ ~ \.. ,-", ..u "-:-:1 -. c; -ri ~~ C) "'.- ~~)\ ;po ~ ~) C~ ~ ::.;-:"1 l-V ~D t:J -< ... THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7100 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO.: 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS, NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROS$CLAIM PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P 2252(d) OF DEFENDANT, ADIN KENES AND NOW ONTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes the Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, who, in Answer to the New Matter in Nature of Crossclaim of Defendant, Adin Kenes respectfully represent that: 46. The Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference, without admission or denial, the allegations and responses that the Defendant made in response to the Plaintiff's allegations and other Defendants that are referenced by Defendant Adin Kenes. By way of further explanation, the Answering Defendant avers that the remains of the averments in this paragraph are legal conclusions which require no answer. 47. Answering Defendant submits that the allegations contained within this paragraph of the Co-Defendant's crossclaim pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) amount to legal conclusions which require no Answer. Where an Answer is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and Wherefore, Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, hereby pray that the Complaint be dismissed, at the costs of Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, for the relief alleged in Paragraphs 58 and 59 of Defendants Answer with New Matter. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: 8"( tt( () <- By ~iIatfI~ Joh lounlacker, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 73112 P.O. Box 999 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7134 2 /' VERIFICATION I, Defendant, Jason Kutulakis, hereby state that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to the New Matter of Defendant Kenes are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. VERIFICATION I, Defendant, Joanne Kutulakis, hereby state that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to the New Matter of Defendant Kenes are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. -JA~ UJLI0:a J6ANNE KUTULAKIS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Jeannie L. Kawalec, an employee for the law firm Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) was served upon all counsel of record by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, on the date set forth below: By First Class U.S. Mail: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Suite 303 2040 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Stricker, Lerman, et al. 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Dated: '% / q!o <- 0 r:-. 0 c I ',.) -n < ~ \] t-.: -- "'-;, nl :-:l "., r--== " " -',:"T rr'l '~~ I'..: CJ :::~ ~~ ;'-hi r::) ~" ." -i, Cl ~_.:-;; C) ;; C) \._:. m c::..~ ._4 Z :...> ")> =< :::0 'D -< j. . John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7125 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO.: 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party; 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this Certificate; 3. More than twenty (20) days has elapsed and no objections have been filed. 4. The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: 'if;)-? (O.:L By: JOH FLOUNLACKER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant Kutulakis THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7100 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO.: 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: Counsel and Parties of Record Defendants, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutlakis, intend to serve the subpoenas identical to the ones attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas may be served. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: ~ I q I () L By ~ ~.(, John loun acker, Esql!ire Attorney I.D. # 73112 P.O. Box 999 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7134 .' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-1846 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: David N. Bosacco. M.D. - Eastern Orthopedic Center (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: A complete copy of all records pertainina to Marrie Anne Cassidy. includina but not limited to notes of office visits. records of other health care providers. hospital records. reports of diaanostic studies and bills. at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305N. Front Street. Harrisbura. PA 17101 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: John Flounlacker, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 237-7125 SUPREME COURT ID#: 73112 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Diyision Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-1846 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Thomas J. Green. M.D. - Appalachian Orthopedic Center (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: A complete copv of all records pertainino to Marrie Anne Cassidv. includino but not limited to notes of office yisits. records of other health care oroviders. hosoital records. reports of diaonostic studies and bills. at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front Street. Harrisburo. PA 17101 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: John Flounlacker, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 237-7125 SUPREME COURT ID#: 73112 A TIORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-1846 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Kennett Familv Practice Associates. Marv-Anne Ost. M.D. (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service ofthis subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: A complete copy of all records pertainino to Marrie Anne Cassidy. includino but not limited to notes of office visits. records of other health care providers. hospital records. reoorts of diaanostic studies and bills. at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front Street. Harrisbura. PA 17101 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: John Flounlacker, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 237-7125 SUPREME COURT 10#: 73112 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Deputy MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 02-1846 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Pennsvlvania Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: A complete copv of all records pertainina to Marrie Anne Cassidy. includina but not limited to notes of office visits. records of other health care providers. hospital records. reports of diaanostic studies and bills. at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front Street. Harrisbura. PA 17101 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: John Flounlacker, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 237-7125 SUPREME COURT 10#: 73112 A TIORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Deputy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \. Jeannie L. Kawalec, an employee for the law firm Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) was served upon all counsel of record by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, on the date set forth below: Bv First Class U.S. Mail: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Suite 303 2040 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Stricker, Lerman, et al. 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Dated: ~I/~ (oz:.... John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7125 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO.: 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, this ..21 f:f< day of August, 2002, I, DEENA D. BOLZE, a Legal Assistant in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Suite 303 2040 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, et al. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle PA 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes :180203.1 (") 0 0 ~ r~~ ..'c, ~.,..." (/) -onJ fT1 fTlp i -0 " z::n I ~'"'n ~~. ..,. '.-) L.) ..--'! ,.-, ,-~.1 ~L! .'1:) --I" " , )> --, ..".. , , Z' ' ......'" {S~\~ $0 r;-? C -'~l ~ -:-'. ,"-.) ~ co IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law No. 02-1846 vs. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this CJ Y--hday of September, 2002, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the INTERROGATORlESIREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANT, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, TO DEFENDANTS, JASON AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS, SET NO.1, as by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) BY: Rob A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 fr,) klr/neidlinger-int2 () ,"~ C) "-w.' C fv " -=~ (I) vO:J ,,, rnr-n v "" Z:J.: Z C - en '-.....' -< IC~) f::;: -0 :!~ ~$, ~- ~~~. :z ~ --I "'V ;,Jo -;J .r:- =< -~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Cffn day of September, 2002, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the INTERROGATORIESIREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANT, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, TO DEFENDANT, ADIN KENES, SET NO.1, as by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) BY: ;,-J bert A. Lerman Supreme Court ID No. 07490 Attorney for Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/neidlinger-intI o C 2"" -oe-c rTlrT ;:~ ~,). 71:.: 2'iL ::,~ --~. ~t~ -/ =3 -, c.> t....) (n ,.., " o -(1 -0 ~. J'" J; ':'+fj "~ S~) ~~\~~ -r..- :;0 0< ~: ''V .:::- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKlS AND JOANNE KUTULAKlS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1012 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire of Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, as attorneys for the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, in the above- captioned matter and mark the docket accordingly. By: GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & C, KIN A~/ THOMA B. AUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this tf-bl ,-:-, day of [;kChv>~'J ,2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 71 0 1 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle,PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: THOMAS B. SPO E, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD.. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 ~ " '1:1 is.'.i n1n: 2::CJ 2:r (/51c-, ~f< :<:::: -~ ::2'0 ~(j Pc 2: =< C> N o .-., n t u; o "'TJ ,- r l~:-] 'c"""'" -'J 1 :"/C; ;5~ (5 rr~ -! ~ ~ -0 ::;;: w cn IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No.. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF NON-CONCURRENCE AND NOW, this h~ day ofL)}o ")~~} , 2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certifies that defense counsel for Def~:ndant Larry V. Neidlinger has attempted to resolve this situation without a Motion to Compel but has received no indication from Plaintiffs' counsel as to whether Plaintiffs' counsel is opposing or not opposing the above Motion. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: J:// '4.% THOMAS B. SPO LE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court J.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANT LARRY V. NEIDLINGER ~ AND NOW, TO WIT, this l-;rfA day of (1.::)av?~-.-..f,,9-A ,2002, comes the Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, by his counsel, GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, and files the following Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories of Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger as follows: 1. On or about May 23, 2002, Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger propounded a set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set No.1, to the Plaintiffs. Copies of said Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were filed with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on or about May 23,2002. 2. Said discovery responses were due on or before June 23, 2002. 3. On July 15, 2002, counsel for moving Defendant received Plaintiffs' Response to Request for Production of Documents but has not received Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories. 4. The submission of these discovery requests constitutes the first stage of discovery, which would afford moving Defendant the opportunity to identify potential trial witnesses and trial evidence, including experts, and discovery information relevant to the alleged damages claimed by actual witnesses. WHEREFORE, Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger respectfully requests this Honorable Court to issue a verdict compelling Plaintiffs to respond to fute:rrogatories of Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger within 30 days from the date ofthis Order. By: GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERM SOLYMC~L ~/M. THOMAS B. ONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this /).:11.. ....-'--\ day of ,~~~, 2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories of Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) By: GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLY~ THOMAS B.~AUGLE' ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 (") 0 0 C 1'0 .t1 :::-- V ""1:: ~~ , r," '.." '";) rn r .:J :;~ ....~-+ '- ~? C') ~~; '..- -"9 j; c: -'It" :2= ~. :i~ (~ 1'-:> (- "..0 ";:;.. ::.;:; <.- ":::> =0 :< c;:, -< IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA MARRlE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Ciyil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, withdraws his Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories, as Plaintiffs have provided said discovery responses to Defendant. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & C S By: THOMAS B. SP Supreme Court . . #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUl\fBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Ii#' day o[J)~ , 2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Praecipe to Withdraw Motion to Compel Discovery by United States Mail, addressf:d to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) By: GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LE AN, SOLYMOS & C~KINS ~ THOMA B. SP AUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court. . #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 - 0 a - C f'\) ,- -1 r 0 $:: c:, eu r'11 r~ ;' [~ ""- ;Ic --;..- ciS .' ():) -< !'::: -a 'S; ""-- C1 .c: C' 5> f\) , , ~~. '-.., --_I ,) .....:-~. :< :J:J (\) -< MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants NO. 02-1846 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2002, upon consideration of the Motion To Compel Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories of Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger, a Rule is issued upon Plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, Michael J. Navitsky, Esq. 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorney for Plaintiffs ~~ /:l . /4.0"L. Cf- ... . t ViNIf/ilASNN3d U~~'ln"', r' ''''''"'"":/''1'''''' I " I . , , . . ~~. - :,-..,,, "1 ~: f I 1..-'\,/ . ..'m:<~4' 't 'V fIC: '.111,',"\11 'I ',0 ( 'J ~ 6 ~~1 -;C Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PAl 70 13 Attorney for Defendant Adin Kenes Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esq. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger John Flounlacker, Esq. 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 Attorney for Defendants Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis :rc IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this (~ day o~~ .,2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Answers of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to Kutulakis Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: ~ THOMA~ LE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court ~I. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 0 0 C;I C N -n S. ;::::J I -r, I ~l -, ." m ~ '.;- ! (-') Z :C' N ;:?: r (f) :r- CJ -<'~ ,-,-~ C ~ -0 C) ::r;: j; () ~ C) C _""_I Z ..,~ =<! N :.0 (:::l -< IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3/ s+ p AND NOW, this day of ecemter, 2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Response of Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, To Kutulakis Defendants' Request for Production of Documents by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS By: ~ / THOMA B. SP GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court 1. . #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 o c ~ '"UGD mrn Z:C Z~; ~:2~ r::c: ~c; ~O )>C Z ~ o w "- ;:po. Z I 0.) o "'T1 :~.:1 ;h~ .:.8 ;~~~ ;f:; rn ~ ~ ~ ;Do ::II: N (T\ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKlS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 3^", day o~ 2003, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the linn of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certil'y that I have this date served a copy of Defendant Larry Neidlinger's Response To Request For Prodnction Of Photographs Directed To AU Parties Of Defendant Adin Kenes by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows; Michael 1. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Ling1estown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John F10un1acker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) By; GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS &~S.,. ...~ ~~~~../ -- THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court ID. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 . ------ "^""~; '....- ....~..., .<' .... ,. ,tJ\ t (') c ~ ""Ul):! nOlrc', -",_. ""- ....(. zr~~. ~:;? r:::c );~ - zc> )>~ ~ a w o Tl L :!-~ ~"7""'" "'- -n F::' t'-r; -, 'T' ....,~'\ ~.,....) "'I ~:;~ i~3 :::5 I',) _I :J> 50 -< , 0> v ~ r:-? :.n IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKlS AND JOANNE KUTULAKlS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of ~~, 2003, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, 13 #t Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a wpy of the Defendant Larry Neidlinger's Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Directed to Defendant Larry Neidlinger by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Kutulakis' Defendants) Thomas 1. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (Counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes) By: GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS &. ..c~ N~ . ~ THOMA B. AUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #64584 Attorney for Defendant Larry V. Neidlinger 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 . . ,.' f,. . .. " o ~~ ;:g F~ -,. -,.. J.._w,-'_ Zt, (0 . ..:< r::: :1>,,- ::: ~~ -:;.-r "3 -, 4=:,~ G:J (-. . j ~"Cl ;:0 1'.' :Jl ..-J ::.:J -< 'ORIGINAL MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA NO, 02-1846 Civil Term v. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW, comes, Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy, by their attorneys Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby Petition Your Honorable Court to schedule a status conference in the above-captioned case for the following reasons: I. Plaintiffs, Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy, are adult individuals who reside in Chadds Ford, Delaware, County, Pennsylvania. 2, The accident made subject of this action and outlined in detail in Plaintiffs' Complaint took place on May 21,2000 at the residence of Jason and Joanne Kutulakis located at 411 Barnstable Road in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, where Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy were guests ofMr. and Mrs. Kutulakis at the time of the accident. 3. The accident occurred when the interior staircase leading from the first to the second floor of the Kutulakis' residence collapsed with Mrs. Cassidy at the top of the stairs causing her to fall approximately ten feet to the floor below. 4. The staircase, including stair stringers and stair treads, were designed and constructed by Defendant, Adin Kenes as part of renovations to the Kutulakis' home that were underway at the time ofthe accident. 5. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendant, Adin Kenes, was hired or otherwise retained by Defendant, Larry V. Neidlinger, to perform the work on behalf of Defendants, JaRon and Joanne Kutulakis. 6. A status conference is requested in this case in order to establish discovery guidelines relative to the remaining witness depositions, to schedule the pretrial conference and trial date and to discuss settlement. 7. Plaintiffs believe that a status conference would serve the purpose of allowing all the parties to complete their discovery in a timely fashion while allowing the case to be listed for trial at a time that does not conflict with the schedules of all counsel involved on behalf of the parties. 8. All parties concur with this request WHEREFORE, a status conference is requested for establishing pre-trial and trial deadlines and to discuss settlement. Respectfully submitted, Date:J-\D -O~ ]Zb,OLSON Michael J. Na it J.D. No. 5880 2040 Lingle:stown Road, Suite 3 Harrisburg,PA 17110 (717) 541-9205 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessie K. Walsh, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, do hereby certify that I am this \ O~ day of February, 2003 serving a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Petition to Request a Status Conference upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PAl 70 13 Counsel for Defendant Kenes John F1ounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg,PA 17108 Counsel for Defendants Kutulakis' Q4W~' 0ofM, Jessie K. Walsh 0 ...., <= 0 c ~, :s... -"""" ,'OJ -r}C'..' ...., ..... Ill' -, n rn7J ;-~ ~ = ::;>- ,- "Tlt'J '-' - ::-.0 _ ~ (: ~?(J~J - :C::~j "'- C"; '-' z: ::Jo: 0..- )> (~:J -~..>() c: ry :::5rn ;2'r ~ul =< "- N ~n U1 -.' ORIGI~HL MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA ~ NO. 02-1846 Civil Term v. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, considering Plaintiffs' Petition for a Status Conference, it is hereby Ordered c." that a Status Conference be held on the Jfi day of '--hlcvu.i, 2004, at ,~: 06 0' clock am/pm in chambers. ,J .duu<.-~ ,J (,,~ ;JM'( BY1HEcS:2:7J~~ J. ~ "e',' , ","/',:C<) 1\~','I' fI"_1 ,I \'-'. Ita :'0 \1,c\ 92 tD.:l \l~D~ j~}j{i.G>~G;\iOdj 3\-\1 jO :18\j~O""O:rl\:\ MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, PLAINTIFFS V. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER: JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, DEFENDANTS 02-1846 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATUS CONFERENCE A status conference was conducted on March 18, 2004. Present representing plaintiff was Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire, representing defendant Larry V. Neidlinger was Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, representing defendant Adin Kenes was Thomas J. Williams, Esquire, representing defendants Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis was John Flounlacker, Esquire. (1) All plaintiffs' discovery together with the production of any expert reports shall be completed within three months of this date and all defense discovery including any expert reports shall be completed within six months of this date. (2) The case shall be pre-tried on October 6, 2004, and all counsel are attached for a jury trial on Monday, October 25, 2004. Edgar B. Bayley, J. Iff ~O~ O?:f \ '\) "..- --- -:'/')(:0 9 I :}j Pd 81 (!VH'IOOl Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire For Plaintiffs Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire For Larry Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire For Adin Kenes John Flounlacker, Esquire For Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis Court Administrator :sal MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS I'sr OTTO MI2W&'O ATTORNEYS & COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE FACSIMILE INTERNET (717) 243-3341 (717) 243-1850 www.mdwo.com June 16,2004 WILLIAM F. MARTSON JOHN B. FOWLER III EDWARD L. SCHORPP DANIEL K. DEARDORFF THOMAS J. WILLIAMS'" Ivo V. Orm III GEORGE B. FALLER JR.'" CARL C. RlSCH DAVID A. FITZSIMONS DAVID R. GALLOWAY ANTHONY T. LUCIDO CHRISTOPHER E. RICE TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Edgar B. Bayley Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 "'BOARD CERTIFIED CiVIL TRIAL SPECIALIST RE: Marie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy v. Adin Kenes, Larry V. Neidlinger, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis No. 02-1846 - Cumberland County C.c.P. Our File Number 3050.196 Dear Judge Bayley: You may recall, this case came before you on March 18, 2004, for aStatus Conference, at which time you issued a Case Management Order by agreement of all parties. Copies ofthese are enclosed for your convenient reference. I represent Defendant Adin Kenes. A couple of days ago, he informed me that he had filed bankruptcy back in January. Neither myself, nor any of the other attorneys knew anything about this when we met with you for the Status Conference. I only discovered it myself on June 8, 2004, and immediately notified all other counsel. I was able to obtain a copy of the bankruptcy filing, which was done in the Middle District on January 23,2004, and docketed to No. 1-04-00407. An Automatic Stay was issued that same day. I also noted that the Plaintiffs in this case, Marie and Richard Cassidy, were listed as creditors and their claim is scheduled to be discharged, ifit has not already been discharged. Copies ofthe pertinent documents are also attached and they are currently being forwarded to all other counsel. I imagine Plaintiff will petition to lift the stay and object to the discharge in view of the fact that there is insurance coverage; however, your Order of March 18, 2004, was inadvertently issued at a time when a Bankruptcy Stay was in effect. I have taken the liberty to prepare an Order for your consideration and that is also attached. Very truly yours, MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO I . I -y~ i t,....tr..-':"" Thomas J. Williams TJW/ajt Enclosures cc: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire (w/enc.) Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire (w/enc.) John Flounlacker, Esquire (w/enc.) F,\FILES\DA T AFILE\DonegaI3050ICurrent\ 196.jb 1 INFORMATION' ADVICE' ADVOCACY SM MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER,: JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, DEFENDANTS 02-1846 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT: -X- ~ day of June, 2004, the case management order issued on March 18, 2004, IS VACATED.1 ~"rt Edg~rB. Bayl Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire For Plaintiffs Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire For Larry Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire For Adin Kenes ~ ;'JrU<c-JJ ~ .,) s: 0'1 John Flounlacker, Esquire For Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis q-" Court Administrator :sal I It is suggested that in anticipation of the stay in bankruptcy being lifted in light of the liability coverage, that counsel stay on the schedule set forth in the order of March 18, 2004. If the stay is lifted as anticipated counsel should advise the court and we will reinstate the order which included attachment of counsel for a pre-trial conference and trial in October, 2004. F:\.EG-{)'fHCE U~F T'r"'I-= DCf1~,-i~.!i,,',.dr,T,l\,L-N _ I I ,'_ 1,,-1 "" ',. .' ., 2UO~ JUN 25 flM 10: 19 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA NO. 02-1846 Civil Term v. ..ORIGINAL ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, Defendants CNIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW, comes, Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy, by their attorneys Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby Petition Your Honorable Court to schedule a status conference in the above-captioned case for the following reasons: 1. The initial status conference in this case was held on March 18, 2004 before the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley who issued an order regarding discovery and scheduling the case for trial during the October term. 2. Discovery progressed until counsel for Defendant Adin Kenes notified all counsel and the Court that his client had declared bankruptcy. 3. Judge Bayley issued an Order on June 25, 2004 vacating the Case Management Order previously issued on March 18,2004. A copy of the Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Counsel were instructed by Judge Bayley's June 25, 2004 Order to advise the Court when the bankruptcy stay was lifted in this case. 5. Undersigned counsel recently received an Order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dated September 16, 2004 lifting the stay in the instant action. A copy ofthe bankruptcy court Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2 6. Necessary discovery, including the deposition of building inspector Roger Olson and an inspection of the accident scene, as well as trial testimony by way of video depositions of orthopedic surgeons, Dr. Green in Carlisle and Dr. Wapner in Philadelphia need to be rescheduled and obtained for use at trial. 7. It is therefore respectfully requested that the Court schedule another status conference for the purposes of establishing discovery and pretrial deadlines as well as scheduling a pretrial and trial date. WHEREFORE, a status conference is requested for establishing pre-trial and trial deadlines and to discuss settlement. Respectfully submitted, DateJ~(~r Ut1 ~ 5DOl( N~~r~~~y' 0 " WISN1KI LLP 1\ ij tttt~ V ~Iki Michokl J. Navi s1&, Esquire " J.D. No. 58803 " i \ 2040 Linglesto~ Road, Suite 3b3\ Harrisburg,PA 17110 '\ (717) 541-9205 Attorney for Plaintiffs 3 MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, DEFENDANTS 02-184G CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT "7C .?-J day of June, 2004, the case management order issued on March 18, 2004, IS VACATED.' By ~eourt, G~ Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire For Plaintiffs Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire For Larry Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire For Adin Kenes John-Elounlacker, Esquire For Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis TRUE COpy FROM RECORt) In T..Umooy Whereof, I here unto set rfFf hand and the ~l of said Coysl at Carlisle, Pa. rhls.....,;S~ day ~ ..2tVY .., -,' 20", t? __~, ~ ~ / , ProthonOtary I It is suggested that in anticipation of the stay in bankruptcy being lifted in light of the liability coverage, that counsel stay on the schedlJle set forth in the order of March 18, 2004. .If..ttle.stay..i5-liftee.as-al'ltie;patet:l"t:O~1 snoultMJdvise-the--" ,co.w:t.aAQ.we.Wilj.reiFlState.t~r.dekWhjGR.JAGlUded.13lttashme"t-ef"cmrnseH'or'a pre..triaLcoRfereFlEle-aFle-trial-i".eetooeT;"'2t)€l~_ Court Administrator :sal S"p 23 04 02:30p LAWRENCE G. FRANK (717) 234-7470 p.l .---- '-' .'iEF 11 200\ .- IN TIlE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR TIlE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA INRE: ADIN SE1lIKENEs KELLy MARIE KENEs, Debtor s : CASE NO.1.. 04-00407 : CHAPTER. 7 MARRm ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Movants v. ADIN SETH KENES, and STEVEN M. CARR, Esquire, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Respondents ORDER AT HARRISBURG in said District, this 11.0 Lib day of ~~!at.\.) .2004, Upon COIlSidcr.lt.ion of the foregoing moliOll seeking an Older modifying the aulomatic stay, and it appearing that CODSeIlt has been given to said motion by the trustee in liIanlauptcy and the attorney for the Debtors, good reason appearing therefore, no objections lIppearing thereto, it is HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the 3utmnatic: stay be and hereby is Iiftod in filvor of the Movants and lI8&insl the Debtor Adin Seth Kenes, enablins the Mo-_ Marrio Armc Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy to )H'OCeed with an aclioo JlIeViousIy filed in the COllrt of Commoa Picas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvllllia, aaainst Adin Seth Kenes. The claU:o or aaioa ..... pRlC:eed only to the extent of the available insurance coverage available. HARRISBURG PA BY 1HB COURT: lei MARY D. FRANCE MARY D. FlU~CE IIanIcruptcy 1udge rILED I f SEP I 1 6 ;',1J,t. Ck- L. Ct'~d~, lJ.S. ft~!'1I{1:.:p1Cy' Court CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessie K. Walsh, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, do A~' hereby certify that I am this L day of October, 2004 serving a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Petition to Request a Status Conference Upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Robert A. Lennan, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P.O. Box 999 Hamsburg, P A 17108 Counsel for Defendants Kutulakis' '----- L~l{ (J~~ Jessie K. Walsh 4 ? l'-> (;:~ (,;;,;.J ",- C> c~; ..... , o. ~ "j'! -;, mp:. -rJr'!] ~;f~1 C(' ~::"1 ~~~ -:l-.~n ("~~:"i 2)''\' "~1 ".1;" "".0 :< -0 ~, -"'" ~ (~, O'~ MARRlE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA NO. 02-1846 Civil Tenn ORIGINAl v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS, and JOANNE KUTULAKlS, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, considering Plaintiffs' Petition for a Status Conference, it is hereby Ordered that a Status Conference be held on the ~..jJ. day o~~~ ,2004, at 3JDo'clock aatJpm in ORDER chambers. ///1--;) BYT~l}COURT' .! / -- (j~ I~ .Jooi The Honorable Eligar B. Bayley ~ n'O~ \O.Vf'- 8 I :Z I/J I I I "i} "Uor,Z ...~, I l.l AtT\!lcr-~C-:-i.L}:::'d :T-ll :10 .j~)t:L:~:Ju'G::I:_-i ...., MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY AND RICHARD W. CASSIDY, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERL.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, : JASON KUTULAKIS and JOANNE KUTULAKIS, DEFENDANTS 02-1846 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT gk:91 day of November, 2004, the bankruptcy stay that had prevented this case from proceeding having blgen lifted, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) All discovery, depositions and exchange of expert reports shall occur by December 31, 2004. (2) All counsel are attached for the civil trial term commencing on Monday, March 14,2005. (3) (4) The pretrial conference will be on February 23, 2005. It is the responsibility of counsel to list the case for the March term. .() ~ \ \,tf\ J >... M f~: N >- .. I'" tU::'~: en ;;:r () .,c. rt-C1 "';":""'" ..~..- ~~:. ~ 0 0'"\ ,. [).. lJ..J 0': I Et!tu ~"'"' :r c::> j r:.::: :::5.:.: i't LL ...::r C) (:.::-,':) :'5 = ('o.,J 0 Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire For Plaintiffs Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire For Larry Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire For Adin Kenes John Flounlacker, Esquire For Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis Court Administrator :sal \ P~CIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must .be typewritten and sul:xnitted in duplicate) TO THE PIOl'HON:lTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY ~ORJGjN~L Please list the following case: (Check one) x for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. for trial without a jury. -------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption RUst be stated in full) Marrie Anne Cassidy and Richard W. Cassidy, Plaintiffs (check one) ( X) Civil Action - Law Appeal fran Arbitration (other) (Plaintiff) vs. Adin Kenes, Larry V. Neidlinger, Jason Kutulakis and Joanne Kutulakis, The trial list will be called on ~ February 15, 2005 Trials COlImence on _TT"h 14 _ 700<; (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on February 23, 2005 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials. ) vs. (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.) No. 02-1846 Civil :XIl9 2002 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Michael J. Navitsky, Esq., 2040 Linglestovn Rd., SUite 303, Harrisburg, PA I7!tnO Indicate trial counsel for other parties if knOlm: 'Ibamas B. Sponaugle, Esq., for Defendant Neidlinger, 'Ibamas J. Winiams, Esq., for Defendant Kenes, and John Flounlacker, Esq., for Defendants. KtItulans' This case is ready for trial.* Signed: "Pursuant to Court Order dated New. 9, 2004, signed counsel of record is listing this Print case for tbe March 14, 2005 civil Tenn. Date: Jmmray 18, 2005 Attorney Ear: Vl:;1;ntiF4'"1i -, ~- ""-t .'1' '-,~ ~-:> (.) C<) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessie K. Walsh, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, do ('1/" hereby certify that I am this /6/day of January, 2005 serving a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Praecipe to List upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Robert A. Lerman, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Counsel for Defendant Neidlinger Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Counsel for Defendant Kenes John Flounlacker, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PAl 71 08 Counsel for Defendants Kutulakis' w~&;fJ0M~ ------. Jessie K. Walsh 2 , , ,-.....') C.::':::l C..~'l ';::,..r1 () -" :7 r;17: \...:..:;: f3 C,) C~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA MARRIE ANNE CASSIDY and RICHARD W. CASSIDY, Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law vs. No. 02-1846 ADIN KENES, LARRY V. NEIDLINGER, JASON KUTULAKIS AND JOANNE KUTULAKIS Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO: PROTHONOTARY Please mark the docket in the above-captioned matter settled and satisfied. By: O""'l~~gI!l.R A I i'laWuvv. ~_rj r~.) {.~<: - -..--------------