SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK EVELYN P. BURKE and JUDITH O. BURKE, : : Plaintiff, : : vs.

: JOAN SANTERAMO, A. JULIUS GALE and : : BLANCA AQUINO, : : Defendants. : Case No.: 08762/2008 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE VERIFIED ANSWER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COUNTER CLAIMS CROSS CLAIMS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, hereby appears in this action and that the undersigned has been retained as attorney for said defendant and demands service of all papers in this action upon the undersigned at the address stated below. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, by her attorney, RICHARD A. GUTTMAN, ESQ., hereby interposes the following answer, affirmative defenses, counterclaims and cross claims to the complaint herein. 1. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs complaint. 2. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs complaint 3. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs complaint

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

4.

Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs complaint 5. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of plaintiffs complaint, except admits that defendant is a natural person and is citizen and resident of Suffolk County, the State of New York. 6. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of plaintiffs complaint and respectfully refer all questions of law to the Court. 7. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs complaint. 8. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of plaintiffs complaint. 9. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in

paragraph 9 except to the extent that the property invested in by the plaintiffs and defendants is located in Suffolk County; however, defendant will respectfully refer all questions of law to the Court. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of plaintiffs complaint, except admits to the extent that plaintiffs and defendants did enter into an agreement on or about March 28, 2006.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

11.

Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of plaintiffs complaint. 12. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of plaintiffs complaint and respectfully refer all questions of law to the Court. 13. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in

paragraph 13 of plaintiffs complaint, leaves plaintiff to his proofs. 14. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

in paragraph 14 of plaintiffs complaint, except to the extent that defendant admits that plaintiffs did allow money from the partnership to be transferred to co-defendants JOAN SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS GALE. 15. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs complaint. 16. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

in paragraph 16 of plaintiffs complaint, except admits that JOAN SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS GALE never repaid the money they took from the said real estate venture entered into by the parties. 17. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

in paragraph 17 of plaintiffs complaint, leaves plaintiff to his proofs. 18. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of plaintiffs complaint.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

19.

Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of plaintiffs complaint. 20. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of plaintiffs complaint. 21. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of plaintiffs complaint. 22. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of plaintiffs complaint. 23. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 23 of plaintiffs complaint. 24. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

in paragraph 24 of plaintiffs complaint, leaves plaintiff to his proofs. 25. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

in paragraph 25 of plaintiffs complaint, leaves plaintiff to his proofs. 26. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

in paragraph 26 of plaintiffs complaint, leaves plaintiff to his proofs. 27. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 27 of plaintiffs complaint.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

28.

Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 28 of plaintiffs complaint. 29. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs complaint, leaves plaintiff to his proofs. 30. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of plaintiffs complaint. 31. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 31 of plaintiffs complaint. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
32.

Defendant repeats and realleges each and every answer contained in paragraphs 1

through 31, inclusive, as though more fully set forth herein. 33. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

in paragraph 33 of plaintiffs complaint, leaves plaintiff to his proofs. 34. Defendants answer: Denied. Defendant denies knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 34 of plaintiffs complaint. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 35. Defendant alleges upon information and belief that plaintiffs complaint herein fails

to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

36. granted.

Plaintiffs will be unjustly enriched if the relief demanded in the complaint is

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 37. Plaintiffs action has not been properly commenced, as personal jurisdiction has not

been obtained through proper service of process. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 38. Causes of action in plaintiffs complaint are barred by the doctrines of Waiver,

Estoppel and Latches. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 39. Defendant alleges upon information and belief that plaintiff is before this Court

with Unclean Hands. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 40. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs actions and complaint constitute fraud

against the defendants. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 41. the defendants. AS AND FOR A EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 42. Plaintiffs alleged loss referred to in its complaint resulted completely from Plaintiffs actions and complaint constitute a criminal and civil conspiracy against

plaintiffs own conduct through their own acts or negligence or through the conduct and negligence of parties not named in plaintiffs pleadings. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 43. That the injuries and damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs were

cause entirely or in part through the culpable conduct of parties, persons or entities other than the answering defendant without any negligence or breach on the part of the answering defendant and

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

the answering defendant seeks dismissal or reduction in a recovery that may be had by the plaintiffs in the proportion which culpable conduct, attributable to the parties, persons or entities other than the answering defendant bears to the entire measure of responsibility for the occurrence. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 44. Pursuant to General Obligations law 15-108 and the ruling in Williams v. Niske,

81 N.Y. 2d 437, 599 N.Y.S. 2d 519, the answering defendant, demands a set-off corresponding to the amount of any settlement reached with any other tortfeasors involved in the operative facts of this lawsuit, whether they are named defendants herein. AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 45. Plaintiffs prevented answering defendant from having any decision making or

management role in the real estate venture and premises referred to in plaintiffs complaint. AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 46. Defendant alleges upon information and belief that Plaintiff is not entitled to the

relief sought in the complaint, as the calculation of the amount allegedly due and owing is not a true accounting of the alleged transactions and occurrences between the parties. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 47. the allegations. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 48. Defendant alleges upon information and belief that Plaintiffs and unnamed third Defendants actions were in all respects proper and same are a complete defense to

parties associated with Plaintiffs committed fraud regarding the alleged occurrence(s) that gave rise to this alleged transaction and alleged cause of action. AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 49. Defendant alleges upon information and belief that that no money was or is owed to

Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs Assignor.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 50. Defendant alleges upon information and belief that Plaintiff and managing third

parties associated with plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNTER CLAIM Frivolous Action And Abuse Of Process 51. Defendant, AQUINO BLANCA, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 52. Defendant, by her undersigned counsel, for defendants counterclaim, alleges the

following upon personal knowledge as to defendant and defendants own acts, and upon the investigation of defendants attorneys as to all other matters. Defendant believes that further substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth below after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. 53. Answering defendant reserves the right to amend this answer to include a

counterclaim for its expenses arising out of the filing of this frivolous lawsuit and for damages incurred, including but not limited to, its reasonable attorney fees and costs. AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNTER CLAIM For Breach Of Contract 54. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 55. Defendant, AQUINO BLANCA, is a natural person residing in Suffolk County,

New York at 10 Chestnut Avenue, Stony Brook. 56. Upon information and belief, plaintiff, EVELYN P. BURKE, is a resident of

Suffolk County, New York at 420 Niagara Avenue, Lindenhurst.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

57.

Upon information and belief, plaintiff, JUDITH O. BURKE, is a resident of Nassau

County, New York at 27 Melissa Lane, Old Bethpage. 58. Upon information and belief, co-defendants JOAN SANTERAMO, is a resident of

Suffolk County, State of New York. 59. Upon information and belief, co-defendant A. JULIUS GALE, is a resident of

Suffolk County, State of New York. 60. On or about March, 2006, the parties of the above entitled action formed a business

venture (hereinafter referred to as VENTURE) by execution of a joint venture agreement (hereinafter referred to as VENTURE AGREEMENT) for the purchase, development, and resale of land and improvements located thereon at 72 East Moriches Boulevard, East Port, New York 11941 (hereinafter referred to as PROPERTY). 61. Answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, deposited with plaintiffs $40,000.00

for the joint venture. 62. Upon information and belief, defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, lost her entire

$40,000.00 investment due to plaintiffs conduct or negligence. 63. Pursuant to said VENTURE AGREEMENT all parties to the above entitled action

were investors and each was to have equal ownership and decision making authority for the VENTURE and the PROPERTY. 64. Answering defendant, AQUINO BLANCA, was prevented by plaintiffs from

decision making of the VENTURE and for the PROPERTY including but not limited to financing, construction, hiring, firing and dealing with contractors, renovation, permit applications and sale of property prior to this action. 65. The joint venture was taken over and controlled by the plaintiffs and attorney

RICHARD J. BURKE, ESQ., (hereinafter referred to as ATTORNEY) to the detriment of answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO and the VENTURE.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

66.

Plaintiffs failed to contract with persons or entities necessary to obtain construction

permits, repair and rehabilitate the property for sale as requested and as the business plan for the venture. 67. Upon information and belief, both plaintiffs and ATTORNEY, were involved in a

separate second real estate venture with co-defendants, JOAN SANTORAMO and A. JULIUS GALE. 68. Upon information and belief, on or about April 10, 2006, plaintiffs and

ATTORNEY, allowed and agreed co-defendants, JOAN SANTORAMO and A. JULIUS GALE to take and deplete $18,422.62 from the VENTURE to fund said second unrelated real estate venture. 69. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs, ATTORNEY, and co-defendants, JOAN

SANTORAMO and A. JULIUS GALE entered into said money transaction without the consent or knowledge of answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 70. Upon information and belief, said money transaction made to co-defendants was a

below market non-interest loan. 71. Upon information and belief, plaintiff, ATTORNEY and co-defendants failed to

make adequate protections to answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO and the VENTURE that they would get paid back. 72. Although duly demanded, co-defendants have failed to pay back the VENTURE

and answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 73. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs breached the VENTURE AGREEMENT and

their fiduciary duty to answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINO and the VENTURE. 74. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs engaged in the foregoing conduct

intentionally, maliciously and with reckless and wanton disregard of the VENTURES interests and answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINOs rights and interest in the property.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

75.

Upon information and belief, plaintiffs engaged in the foregoing conduct as part of

a scheme or practice to deprive answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, of her interest in the property, investment and venture. 76. Answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, and the VENTURE, suffered loss and

continue to suffer loss due to plaintiffs conduct, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to act and negligence. 77. Wherefore, answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, is entitled to compensation,

damages including punitive damages against plaintiffs and co-defendants in an amount to be determined by the tier of fact but which, upon information and belief should not be less than TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($250,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A THIRD COUNTER CLAIM For Fraud 78. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 79. 80. 81. Plaintiffs knew defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, was a divorcee. Plaintiffs knew defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, was employed as a nurse. Plaintiffs knew or should have known that defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, was not

a sophisticated or accredited investor. 82. Plaintiffs knew or should have known that defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, were

not involved or had any experience in the real estate business or in real estate development. 83. Plaintiffs induced defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, to sign said venture agreement

wherein plaintiffs promised that all the venture partners would each hold title to the property and have equal control of the venture.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

84.

Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, only found out after entering the venture

agreement that she would not be on the title to said property to the detriment of said defendants value and control of her investment and the venture. 85. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, relied upon plaintiffs promises in forming the

venture agreement. 86. Plaintiffs knew or should have known that defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, relied

upon ATTORNEYS legal advice in forming and entering into said business venture. 87. 88. Plaintiffs are the wife and sister-in-law of ATTORNEY. The close family relationship between plaintiffs and the attorney caused a conflict

of interest between plaintiffs and defendants who are co-investors in the VENTURE. 89. Plaintiffs and ATTORNEY failed to list defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, on the

title of the property. 90. Plaintiffs and ATTORNEY took over management and decision making over the

VENTURE effectively shutting out defendants, including defendant, BLANCA AQUINO to her detriment. 91. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs, co-defendants and ATTORNEY allowed

the VENTURE to entered into and transact a below market value zero interest loan to codefendants JOAN SANTORAMO and A. JULIUS GALE for the benefit of co-defendants, plaintiffs and ATTORNEY. 92. Plaintiffs, ATTORNEY and co-defendants never informed answering defendant

BLANCA AQUINO of said loan transaction until after it was completed. 93. Co-defendants JOAN SANTORAMO and A. JULIUS GALE never paid back

money taken from the VENTURE. 94. As a result of plaintiffs, ATTORNEY and co-defendants actions, answering

defendant BLANCA AQUINO and the VENTURE suffered and continues to suffer losses.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

95.

Upon information and belief, it appears that plaintiffs have committed fraud

against answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 96. WHEREFORE, due to the intentional conduct of plaintiffs, answering defendant

BLANCA AQUINO, suffered damages of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($250,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FOURTH COUNTER CLAIM For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty 97. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 98. Plaintiffs and co-defendants were partners in the venture with answering defendant

BLANCA AQUINO. 99. As partners in VENTURE, Plaintiffs and co-defendants owe a fiduciary duty to

answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 100. Based upon the foregoing, plaintiffs and co-defendants breached their fiduciary

duty to answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, and the venture. 101. Answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, and the VENTURE, suffered and

continue to suffer loss due to plaintiffs and co-defendants acts and omissions that amounted to their breach of fiduciary duty to answering defendant and the VENTURE. 102. Wherefore, answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, is entitled to compensation,

damages including punitive damages against plaintiffs and co-defendants in an amount to be determined by the tier of fact but which, upon information and belief should not be less than TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($250,000.00) DOLLARS.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

AS AND FOR A FIFTH COUNTER CLAIM Specific Performance 103. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 104. Plaintiffs and co-defendants have committed fraud, breached the VENTURE

AGREEMENT and their fiduciary duty to their co-partner and answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 105. By reason of the foregoing, answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, demand

rescission of BLANCA AQUINOs $40,000.00 contribution to the VENTURE and have status quo restored. 106. Answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO has no adequate remedy at law. AS AND FOR A SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM Pursuant To RPAPL Article 15 107. Defendant BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates, renews and realleges all the

foregoing allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth at length herein. 108. the property. 109. Plaintiff, EVELYN BURKE, retains legal title to the property solely as a result of By reason of the foregoing answering defendant possesses an equitable interest in

fraud against answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 110. Plaintiff, EVELYN BURKE, in violation of her fiduciary duty, asserted sole legal

and equitable ownership of the property and has acted to deprive the answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, of any and all legal or equitable right, title and interest in the property.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

111.

By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff EVELYN BURKE was unjustly enriched at

the expense of answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 112. 113. There is no adequate remedy at law. By reason of the foregoing, and pursuant to RPAPL Article 15, answering

defendant, AQUINO BLANCA, is entitled to judgment against plaintiffs:

a.

Declaring that answering defendant has an equitable title to the property and plaintiff holds legal title to the property in constructive trust for benefit of answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO; and

b.

Declaring plaintiff EVELYN BURKES title to said property be subject to a constructive trust; and

c.

Directing that each and every deed to said property recorded in the office of the Clerk of Suffolk County be cancelled of record; and

d.

Directing plaintiff EVELYN BURKE, to duly execute and deliver to answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, a deed, in recordable form, transferring to answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, an interest in said property to be determined by the trier of fact.

114.

Upon information and belief the judgment will not affect contingent rights, if any,

contained in a devise or grant of any third party. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH COUNTER CLAIM Unjust Enrichment And Constructive Trust 115. Defendant BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates, renews and realleges all the

foregoing allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth at length herein.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

116. 117.

As a consequence of the foregoing, plaintiffs have been unjustly enriched. As a consequence of the foregoing, a constructive trust should be imposed upon the

PROPERTY for the benefit of answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, and pursuant to the agreement. 118. There is no adequate remedy at law. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH COUNTER CLAIM Aiding and Abetting Breach of Contract & Fiduciary Duty 119. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 120. Plaintiffs were aware of the fiduciary relationship between co-defendants JOAN

SANTERAMO, A. JULIUS GALE and answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO. 121. Plaintiffs had knowledge of, intended to assist and encourage, and gave assistance

and encouragement to the tortuous conduct described above in the Second and Third Counter Claim and below in the First Cross Claim. 122. Plaintiffs assistance and encouragement was a substantial factor in causing the

tortuous conduct described in the Second and Third Counter Claim and below in the First Cross Claim, and substantially assisted the tortuous conduct. 123. The tortuous conduct described in the Second and Third Counter Claim and below

in the First Cross Claim, of which plaintiffs assistance and encouragement was a substantial factor, caused answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO, to incur substantial damages, as described above, of which answering defendant demands recovery. 124. Further, because plaintiffs acted in a willful, intentional, and malicious manner,

answering defendant is entitled to recover punitive damages from all plaintiffs. AS AND FOR A FIRST CROSS CLAIM Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Indemnification, Contribution & Offset

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

125.

Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 126. Upon information and belief, co-defendant, JOAN SANTERAMO, is a resident of

Suffolk County, New York at 122 St. Andrews Circle, Southampton. 127. Upon information and belief, co-defendant, A. JULIUS GALE, is a resident of

Suffolk County, New York at 122 St. Andrews Circle, Southampton. 128. On or about April 10, 2006, plaintiffs and ATTORNEY provided an interest free

loan to co-defendants, JOAN SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS GALE, the sum of $18,422.62 from the funds of the VENTURE to the detriment of the VENTURE and answering defendant, BLANCA AQUINOs investment interest in said VENTURE. 129. Upon information and belief, said loan from the VENTURE was used to fund an

investment deal involving plaintiffs, ATTORNEY and co-defendants. 130. Plaintiffs, ATTORNEY and co-defendants failed to inform answering defendant

BLANCA AQUINO of said side transaction 131. Plaintiffs, ATTORNEY and co-defendants failed to provide adequate protections to

the VENTURE or answering defendant BLANCA AQUINO for the below market zero interest loan to co-partners. 132. On or about May 15, 2007, demand was made to co-defendants, JOAN

SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS GALE, to repay said loan to the venture. 133. Co-defendants, JOAN SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS GALE, made no such

payment to repay the loan and $18,422.62 is still due and owing to the venture and defendant, BLANCA AQUINO. 134. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, and her investment in the venture has been

damaged due to the conflict of interest and conduct of plaintiffs, ATTORNEY and co-defendants

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

by taking money out of the venture to loan co-defendants, JOAN SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS GALE, money to fund another real estate venture. 135. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, and her investment in the VENTURE were

damaged due to the conduct co-defendants, JOAN SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS GALE, taking needed funds out of the VENTURE through a loan and failing to repay such funds to the VENTURE. 136. Upon information and belief, defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, received no benefit

from the actions complained of in the complaint. 137. Upon information and belief, co-defendants, JOAN SANTERAMO and A. JULIUS

GALE, were unjustly enriched through their culpable conduct as described above. 138. Wherefore, by reason of the foregoing, co-defendants, JOAN SANTERAMO and

A. JULIUS GALE, are liable, therefore, to defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, for damages of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($250,000.00) DOLLARS, plus attorney fees and costs, indemnification and contribution for any liability defendant, BLANCA AQUINO may be found to have to plaintiff. AS AND FOR A SECOND CROSS CLAIM Indemnification, Contribution & Offset 139. Defendant, BLANCA AQUINO, repeats, reiterates and realleges all the foregoing

allegations contained in all the paragraphs set forth above, with the same force and effect as thought fully set forth at length herein. 140. That the alleged injury, injuries and damages, if any, sustained by plaintiffs, as

alleged in plaintiffs Complaint, were caused in whole or in part due to the acts, omissions, negligence or carelessness of BLANCA AQUINOs co-defendants, their agents, servants and or their employees.

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

141.

If plaintiffs recover judgment or settlement from BLANCA AQUINO, such

recovery will have come about because of the acts, omissions, negligence, carelessness and recklessness of BLANCA AQUINOs co-defendants. 142. By reason of the foregoing, BLANCA AQUINOs co-defendants are liable to

BLANCA AQUINO in common law indemnification or contribution for BLANCA AQUINOs entire proportionate share of any judgment or settlement that plaintiffs may recover from defendants. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the answering defendant, Blanca Aquino, respectfully demands judgment as follows:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

dismissing the complaint against defendant Blanca Aquino, in its entirety; and awarding defendant Blanca Aquino actual damages; awarding defendant Blanca Aquino punitive damages; awarding defendant Blanca Aquino costs and reasonable attorney fees; granting defendant, such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this action;

(f)

on the first counter claim, dismissing the complaint against defendant Blanca Aquino, in its entirety and awarding defendant Blanca Aquino costs and reasonable attorney fees;

(g)

on the second counter claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.00, plus punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorney fees, plus pre-judgment and post judgment interest;

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

(h)

on the third counter claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.00, plus punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorney fees, plus pre-judgment and post judgment interest;

(i)

on the fourth counter claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.00, plus punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorney fees, plus pre-judgment and post judgment interest;

(j)

on the fifth counter claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, directing plaintiffs to return in rescission money contributed by said defendant in the amount of $40,000.00 plus pre-judgment and post judgment interest;

(k)

on the sixth counter claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, declaring Blanca Aquino possess equitable title to the property in a percentage to be determined at trial, directing that any deed to the property recorded in the Suffolk County Clerks Office be cancelled and plaintiff duly execute and deliver to Blanca Aquino a deed in recordable form to her an undivided interest in the property in said percentage determined at trial.

(l)

on the seventh counter claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, for a constructive trust be imposed on the property for the benefit of Blanca Aquino;

(m)

on the eighth counter claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.00, plus punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorney fees, plus pre-judgment and post judgment interest;

(n)

on the first cross claim, in favor of defendant Blanca Aquino, in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.00, plus punitive damages in an

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

amount to be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorney fees, plus pre-judgment and post judgment interest;
(o)

on the second cross claim, should any liability be entered against defendant Blanca Aquino, judgment awarded in favor of Blanca Aquino against her co-defendants on the cross-claim, together with such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper and equitable.

Kings Park, New York Dated this 13th day of May, 2008 Respectfully submitted: By:

Richard A. Guttman Esq. 84 Lakebridge Dr. South Kings Park, NY 11754 (631) 544-6917 Attorney for Defendant Blanca Aquino

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK EVELYN P. BURKE and JUDITH O. BURKE, : Case No.: 08762/2008 : Plaintiff, : : vs. : VERIFICATION JOAN SANTERAMO, A. JULIUS GALE and :

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

BLANCA AQUINO, Defendants.

: : : :

State of New York} County of Suffolk}

ss.}

BLANCA AQUINO, being duly sworn, states that she is a defendant in this action and that the foregoing answer is true to her own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to those matters she believes to be true.

___________________________________________ Ms. Blanca Aquino Sworn on this __________ day of ___________, 2008

______________________________ Notary Public

RICHARD A. GUTTMAN, ESQ. Certificate of Mailing I hereby certify that I caused to be mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIMS, and CROSS CLAIMS to:

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire

To:

Richard J. Burke, Esq. Burke & Burke, Esqs., P.C. 500 Corporate Plaza, North Entrance 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 116 Farmingdale, New York 11735-3931 (631) 249-3978 Attorney for Plaintiffs Evelyn P. Burke, Judith O. Burke

To:

Richard Bartel, Esq. Box 5, 179 Montauk Highway Remsenburg, New York 11960 Attorney for Defendant Joan Santeramo

To:

A. Julius Gale 122 St. Andrews Circle Southampton, New York 11968 Defendant Pro-Se

on the 16th day of May, 2008, postage prepaid in the United States Postal Service.

By:_______________________ Richard A. Guttman, Esq. 84 Lakebridge Drive South Kings Park, NY 11754 (631) 544-6917 Attorney for Defendant Blanca Aquino

Law Office Of Richard A. Guttman, Esquire