THE DWECK LAW FIRM, LLP 

H.P. Sean Dweck (HPSD-4187) 

75 Rockefeller Plaza, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10019 

(212) 687-8200 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------X 

CLAUDIO LAVEZZARE, 

Plaintiff, 

07 CV 3542 (LAK) (AJP) 

- against ­

ANSWER 

FIRST HUNGARIAN CONGREGATION 

OHAB ZEDEK, (ECF Case) 

Defendant. 

----------------------------------X 

Defendant, First Hungarian Congregation Ohab Zedek 

(hereinafter "First Hungarian" or "Defendant"), by its attorneys, 

The Dweck Law Firm, LLP, do hereby answer the Complaint in the 

above captioned matter as follows: 

1. Denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the 

Complaint, except admits that an individual representing himself 

to be Claudio Levezzare, whose identity is now in question, was 

employed by Defendant. 

2. As to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendant admits 

that Plaintiff brings this action under the statutes cited 

therein, and Defendant denies that any violation occurred. 

3. Defendant avers that the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 3 of the Complaint called for legal conclusions to 

which no response is necessary, except to admit that Plaintiff 

purports to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to 29 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 9
u.S.C. Subsection 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. Subsection 1331, and that 

Plaintiff claims that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff's state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Subsection 1367(a). 

4. Defendant avers that the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 4 of the Complaint call for legal conclusions for which 

no response is necessary, except to admit that Plaintiff purports 

to lay venue in this Court. 

5. Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief with respect to the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

6. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 

6 of the Complaint. 

7. Defendant denies knowledge or information as to the 

statements contained within Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, except 

admits that an individual representing himself to be Claudio 

Levezzare, whose identity is now in question, was employed by 

First Hungarian since approximately 1999 and had a variety of 

responsibilities therein. Defendant denies knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining 

portions of Paragraph 7. 

8. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 

8 of the Complaint. 

2
 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 2 of 9
9. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

9 of the Complaint. 

10. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

10 of the Complaint. 

11. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

11 of the Complaint. 

12. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

12 of the Complaint. 

13. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

13 of the Complaint. 

14. Defendant repeats and real leges each and every 

admission and/or denial as to Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the 

Complaint as stated in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint as if more 

fully set forth at length herein. 

15. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

15 of the Complaint. 

16. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

16 of the Complaint. 

17. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

17 of the Complaint, except as to the second sentence therein, 

which is a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 

18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

18. 

3
 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 3 of 9
19. Defendant denies the allegations contained In Paragraph 

19 of the Complaint. 

20. Defendant denies the allegations contained In Paragraph 

20 of the Complaint. 

21. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every 

admission and/or denial as to Paragraphs 1-20 of the Complaint as 

stated in Paragraph 21 as if more fully set forth at length 

herein. 

22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

22 of the Complaint except as to the second sentence therein, 

which is a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 

23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

23 of the Complaint. 

24. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

24 of the Complaint. 

25. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

25 of the Complaint. 

26. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

26 of the Complaint. 

27. Defendant repeats and realleges each and every 

admission and/or denial as to Paragraphs 1 through 26 of the 

Complaint as stated in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint as if more 

fully set forth at length herein. 

4
 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 4 of 9
28. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragrap 

28 of the Complaint. 

29. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

29 of the Complaint. 

30. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 

30 of the Complaint. 

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

31. The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. 

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

32. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by 

he applicable statutes of limitations. 

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

33. Even if Plaintiff is entitled to additional 

cClmr)ensation	 under the FLSA, any violation was not willful and 

here fore Plaintiff is not entitled to liquidated damages. 

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

34. Plaintiff's claims are barred, or recovery reduced, by 

doctrine of laches due to Plaintiff's unreasonable and 

nexcusable delay in commencing this action to the detriment of 

fendant. 

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

35. Plaintiff has failed, neglected and/or refused to
 

tigate his alleged damages.
 

5
 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 5 of 9
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 

36. Plaintiff's claims are barred, or recovery reduced, by 

the doctrine of estoppel. 

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

37. Plaintiff's claims are barred, or recovery reduced, by 

the doctrine of unclean hands. 

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

38. Defendant alleges that it is excused from any and all 

liability under the facts alleged in the Complaint because, at 

all times, Defendant acted in good faith, conducted all material 

transactions in good faith, and had reasonable grounds for 

believing that its conduct was in good faith. 

AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

39. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred, 

or recovery reduced, by the doctrine of waiver. 

AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

40. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. 

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

41. Plaintiff has failed to join a necessary party. 

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

42. Any damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff were 

caused in whole, or in part, as a result of the actions of third 

parties. 

6 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 6 of 9
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 

43. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims set forth 

in the Complaint inasmuch as Defendant is not covered under the 

applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 

44. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional 

defenses as Plaintiff's claims are clarified in the course of 

this litigation. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment as follows: 

a. dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety; 

b. granting Defendant its costs, disbursements, and
 

ttorney's fees incurred in this action;
 

c. granting such other and further relief as this Court 

just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

November	 8, 2007
 

THE DWECK
 

Attorneys
 

By: ----z':...-----------­

<.P. Sean Dweck (HPSD-4187) 

75 Rockefeller Plaza, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10019 

(212) 687-8200 

MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
 

Attorneys for Plaintiff
 

110 East 59th Street, 32 nd Floor
 

New York, New York 10022
 

(212) 317-1200 

7 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 7 of 9
S:\Secretary 2\Client Docs\First Hungarian Congregation\Answer to Complaint 11-06-07.wpd 

8
 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on November~ 2007, the foregoing 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses were served in accordance with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or the Southern 

District Local Rules on electronic service upon the following 

parties and participants: 

MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
 

Attorneys for Plaintiff
 

110 East 59th Street, 32nd Floor
 

New York, New York 10022
 

DWECK (HPSD-4187) 

LAW FIRM, LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant 

75 Rockefeller Plaza, 16~ Fl. 

New York, New York 10019 

(212) 687-8200 

Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 22 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 9 of 9