SCANNED ON 311612012

.jr

ZUKERMAN GORE BRANDEIS & CROSSMAN, LLP John K. Crossman FrankC. Welzer Florence M. Beauboeuf Eleven Times Square New York, New York 10036 (2 12) 223-6700 Attorneys for Defendant James Stuckey

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

STEPHANIE BONADIO,
:

Index No. 100792/12

Plaintiff,

against -

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY and JAMES STUCKEY,

--..._*___

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X ...............

ANSWER
James Stuckey (Stuckey), by and through his attorneys, hereby answers the Complaint

of plaintiff Stephanie Bonadio (Bonadio), as follows: The unnumbered paragraphs of the complaint are improper and are therefore denied.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint state

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and are therefore denied.

2.

The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint state

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, except Stuckey is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to where Bonadio resides.
3.

The allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint state

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and are therefore denied.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 1 of 6

4.

Is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and on that basis denied,

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5.

Is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and are therefore denied.
6.
7,

Admitted. Admit that Stuckey became Bonadios supervisor beginning in or around late

20 10 and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 7.

8.

Denied. Denied. Admit that in or around Spring of 201 1, Bonadio began performing additional

9.
10.

duties and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 10.

11.

Admit that Bonadio took steps to move into the position of Director of Corporate

and Executive Education, including drafting an official job description, and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 1 1.

12.

Admit that Stuckey and Bonadio went to dinner on September 23,201 1, and deny

the remaining allegations in paragraph 12. 13. 14, 15. Denied. Denied.

Is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and are therefore denied. 16. Is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and are therefore denied.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 2 of 6

17.

Is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and are therefore denied. 18. 19. Denied. Denied. Denied.

20.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1,

Defendant repeats and realleges each and every answer set forth in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2.
3.

Denied. Denied.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

4.

Defendant repeats and realleges each and every answer set forth in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

5.

Denied. Denied,

6.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 7.

Defendant repeats and realleges each and every answer set forth in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 8. 9. Denied. Denied.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10.

Defendant repeats and realleges each and every answer set forth in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein,

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 3 of 6

11.

Denied. Denied.

12,

WHEREFORE CLAUSE: Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe, pervasive or unwelcomed to be legally actionable.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant had no actual supervisory power over Bonadio, at the relevant time.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant had no authority to undertake or recommend the alleged adverse employment action. Defendant had no involvement in any alleged adverse employment action.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant did not violate any duty or right of plaintiff.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

At all times, Defendant acted reasonably in light of plaintiffs own conduct.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrines of acquiescence, ratification and consent.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims are barred by her unclean hands.

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 4 of 6

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims are asserted in bad faith because there is no factual basis to support them, and Plaintiff knows, or should have known, that her claims are baseless.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate her damages.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff acted in a grossly irresponsible manner and with malice when she falsely reported to

NYU that Stuckey had placed her hand on his crotch and his erect penis. Plaintiff made such
statements knowing them to be false. Plaintiff also falsely concealed that all conduct on the night in question occurred with plaintiffs consent. To the extent that plaintiff has a claim for damages, it should be setoff by the substantial amount of damages caused to Stuckey by plaintiffs defamatory statements to NYU.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has a pattern and practice of making complaints against persons in bad faith.

5
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 5 of 6

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully demands judgment dismissing the Complaint

with prejudice, awarding defendant the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys fees as may be permitted by law, and granting such other and further relief as the

Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York March 6,2012

ZUKERMAN GORE BRANDEIS & CROSSMAN, LLP

Telephone: (212) 223-6700 Attorneysfor Defendant James Stuckey

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 6 of 6