`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK
`SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF ORLEANS
`
`AB 511 DOE,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LYNDONVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT;
`LYNDONVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Index No.: 20-46602
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REPLY AFFIRMATION OF MEGHAN M. HAYES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meghan M. Hayes affirms the following under the penalties of perjury:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney, duly authorized to practice before the Courts of the
`
`State of New York and an associate with the law firm Webster Szanyi LLP, attorneys for
`
`defendants Lyndonville Central School District and Lyndonville Elementary School
`
`(collectively the “District”). I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case.
`
`2.
`
`I submit this affirmation in further support of the District’s motion and
`
`in opposition to Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212
`
`seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint in its entirety.
`
`3.
`
`The District has established its entitlement to summary judgment
`
`and the Plaintiff has failed to either rebut the District’s showing or establish his own prima
`
`facie entitlement to relief.
`
`Background
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`There is no genuine issue of material fact in this case.
`
`All of the evidence developed in this matter definitively establishes
`
`that prior to the 1990 report of abuse, the District had no notice that Houseman was a
`
`danger to children, and as soon as the District received notice of Houseman’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`1 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`propensities, Houseman was reported to law enforcement and removed from the District.
`
`6.
`
`Accordingly, the District cannot be liable for negligently supervising
`
`Plaintiff, negligently hiring, training or retaining Houseman, or breaching its statutory duty
`
`to report, and Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed, in its entirety and with prejudice.
`
`The District Had No Notice of Houseman’s Propensities Prior to December 1990
`
`7.
`
`For the District to be liable for negligent supervision of Plaintiff, or
`
`negligent hiring, training, retention or supervision of Houseman, the District must have
`
`had notice of Houseman’s specific propensity for sexual abuse, such that the abuse of
`
`Plaintiff was foreseeable. (See Reply Memorandum of Law).
`
`8.
`
`Prior to Houseman’s 1990 arrest, the District had no actual or
`
`constructive notice of Houseman’s propensities.
`
`9.
`
`Six former District employees testified that prior to December 1990,
`
`they had no reason to suspect Houseman was acting inappropriately with or sexually
`
`abusing children prior to his arrest in December 1990. (SOF, ¶¶ 49, 53, 63, 66, 68, 71,
`
`73, 86, 90, 91, 93, 104, 110, 115, 116; Hayes Aff., Exs. E-J generally). No one testified
`
`to the contrary.
`
`10. Until 1990, the District never received any complaints about
`
`Houseman acting inappropriately with students. (SOF ¶ 29; Marek Aff., Ex. A, p. 000202-
`
`000361).
`
`11. Houseman received only positive evaluations from when he began
`
`teaching at the District until his resignation more than two decades later. (SOF ¶¶ 24-26;
`
`Marek Aff., Ex. A, p. 000286-000316).
`
`12.
`
`There is nothing in Houseman’s personnel file that suggests the
`
`
`
`2
`
`2 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`District knew or should have known of Houseman’s propensities for abuse prior to 1990.
`
`(SOF ¶ 29; Marek Aff., Ex. A, p. 000202-000361).
`
`13. Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the abuse. (SOF ¶ 123; Hayes Aff.,
`
`Ex. D, p. 63, 82-83, 89-91).
`
`14. Plaintiff also testified that at the time, he had no reason to think that
`
`anyone at the District knew that he was being abused by Houseman. (SOF ¶ 124; Hayes
`
`Aff., Ex. D, pp. 91-92, 99).
`
`15. Plaintiff attempts to manufacture notice by submitting a self-serving
`
`affidavit materially altering his deposition testimony. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. M).
`
`16. At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that on one occasion, Houseman
`
`had him stay alone after class and “this one certain instance [Houseman] had my hand in
`
`his pants, and Mrs. Bane came walking through the door. And I could tell that she was
`
`startled and obviously I was startled, he was startled. And she then, after a couple of
`
`seconds, you know, started talking to him, and then she left the room.” (Hayes Aff., Ex.
`
`D, p. 68-69).
`
`17. Plaintiff was asked “[d]o you know approximately when in the school
`
`year this happened?” Plaintiff responded “I do not.” (Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p. 69).
`
`18. Plaintiff now claims that this incident with Ms. Bane occurred “shortly
`
`after [Houseman] began abusing me in the fifth-grade school year.” (Costanzo Aff., Ex.
`
`M ¶ 3).
`
`19. Regarding the positioning of Plaintiff and Houseman in relation to the
`
`door, Plaintiff was asked “was your back to the door or were you facing the door when
`
`Ms. Bane walked in?” Plaintiff responded “[m]y backside was kind of --- my left side,
`
`
`
`3
`
`3 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`backside, was kind of facing the door.” (Hayes Aff., Ex. D p. 71).
`
`20. Plaintiff further testified as follows:
`
`Q: So when Ms. Bane walked in, did you have to rotate your head
`
`to see her?
`
`A: Yes. I rotated my whole body.
`
`Q: And when you did that, where was Mr. Houseman’s hands?
`
`A: I don’t recall.
`
`Q: And where were your hands when you rotated your body?
`
`A: I believe they came off of his lap….
`
`Q: Was your body blocking the area of his genital region?
`
`A: Yes.
`
`(Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p. 72).
`
`21. Plaintiff attempts to alter this testimony by now claiming that he spun
`
`to the left and stepped back, and that his hand being removed from Houseman’s genital
`
`region would have been visible to Ms. Bane, despite previously testifying that his body
`
`was blocking Houseman’s genital region. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. M, ¶ 4).
`
`22. At his deposition Plaintiff testified that he believed Ms. Bane saw
`
`Houseman abusing him. When asked what he was basing his belief on, Plaintiff simply
`
`responded “[b]ecause she was startled.” (Hayes Aff. Ex. D, p. 73).
`
`23. Plaintiff was also asked “you said at some point [Ms. Bane] started
`
`speaking. Do you recall what she was saying when she started speaking?” Plaintiff
`
`testified “I don’t. It was just a quick conversation. It lasted fifteen seconds, maybe.” “Q:
`
`And did Ms. Bane ever say anything that made you believe that she was startled?” “A:
`
`
`
`4
`
`4 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`No.” (Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p. 73).
`
`24. Plaintiff again seeks to change his testimony by claiming that he
`
`heard Ms. Bane “let out a loud gasp” and that she was “stumbling over her words as if
`
`she did not know what to say.” (Costanzo Aff., Ex. M, ¶ 4).
`
`25.
`
`Finally, at his deposition Plaintiff was asked, “[d]o you have any
`
`recollection as to whether Mr. Houseman’s pants stayed unzipped while Ms. Bane was in
`
`the classroom?” Plaintiff responded, “I have no recollection.” (Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p. 74).
`
`26. Now Plaintiff claims to recall that when Ms. Bane walked into the
`
`classroom, Houseman turned his chair away from Ms. Bane, and “clearly was either
`
`adjusting his pants or zipping them up.” (Costanzo Aff., Ex. M ¶ 5).
`
`27. Plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition clearly established that it would
`
`have been impossible for Ms. Bane to have seen Plaintiff’s hand in Houseman’s pants,
`
`and that other than Plaintiff having the impression that Ms. Bane was startled, he had no
`
`reason to believe she saw his hand in Houseman’s pants.
`
`28. Plaintiff’s self-serving affidavit which attempts to materially alter his
`
`deposition testimony to avoid the obvious consequences of his testimony, creates only a
`
`feigned issue of fact and must be disregarded. (See Reply Memorandum of Law).
`
`29.
`
`Further, Ms. Bane specifically testified that she never witnessed
`
`Houseman abusing Plaintiff, acting inappropriately with a student or sexually abusing a
`
`student. (Hayes Aff. Ex. G, pp. 9-10, 13-14).
`
`30. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether Ms. Bane
`
`witnessed Houseman abusing Plaintiff, and the District established that it did not have
`
`notice of Houseman’s propensities.
`
`
`
`5
`
`5 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`31.
`
`Further, the abuse by Houseman was not foreseeable.
`
`32. Houseman was Plaintiff’s primary teacher during the 1986-1987
`
`school year and had a reason to spend time with Plaintiff. It was not unreasonable for
`
`Plaintiff to be allowed to work one-on-one with Houseman, and the District did not breach
`
`its duty to supervise Plaintiff. Dia CC v. Ithaca Central School Dist., 304 A.D.2d 955, 956
`
`(3d Dept. 2003); Ghaffari v. North Rockland Cent. School Dist., 23 A.D.3d 342, 343 (2d
`
`Dept. 2005).
`
`33. Although Plaintiff claims that Houseman would touch Plaintiff and
`
`other male students on their abdomen, chests and genitals in the school hallway and
`
`entrance to the classroom while other teachers were around, (Costanzo Aff., Ex. M, ¶ 1),
`
`at his deposition Plaintiff did not testify that any teachers or staff were present when
`
`Houseman was allegedly touching Plaintiff and other students. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. A, pp.
`
`77-78).
`
`34. Additionally, each of the teachers deposed in this matter testified that
`
`they never witnessed Houseman touching a student inappropriately. (SOF, ¶¶ 53, 63,
`
`66, 73, 81, 91, 95, 116; Hayes Aff., Exs. E-J generally).
`
`35.
`
`There is no evidence that anyone other Plaintiff witnessed this
`
`alleged touching by Houseman.
`
`36. Plaintiff also submits the affidavit of Patrick Whipple in an attempt to
`
`establish notice. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. L).
`
`37. Whipple was a classmate of Plaintiff’s and Whipple’s observations
`
`and impressions of Houseman’s interactions with Plaintiff, offered decades later and with
`
`the value of hindsight, cannot create a question of fact sufficient to defeat the District’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`6 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`prima facie showing that it had no notice of Houseman’s alleged propensities.
`
`38. Whipple’s allegation that Plaintiff was let into the school early is also
`
`insufficient to establish notice, as he testified at his deposition that he never told his
`
`parents or anyone at the District about Plaintiff being admitted early, and he further
`
`testified that it was common knowledge that Plaintiff failed a grade and so it was assumed
`
`that Plaintiff was simply receiving extra help from Houseman. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. H, pp.
`
`34-36).
`
`39. Allegations of abuse by other District employees are irrelevant to
`
`whether the District had specific notice of Houseman’s dangerous propensities.
`
`40. Plaintiff does not establish that any of the circumstances of the
`
`alleged abuse by other teachers were the same as the circumstances of his own abuse,
`
`such that the District should have recognized something about the interactions between
`
`Plaintiff and Houseman to put the District on notice. (Plaintiff’ Opp., p. 8).
`
`41. Plaintiff has failed to rebut the District’s showing that it had no notice
`
`of Houseman’s propensities, and the District is therefore entitled to summary judgment.
`
`Plaintiff’s Expert Must Be Disregarded
`
`42. Plaintiff relies almost exclusively on the “expert” report of Sherryll
`
`Kraizer in opposition to the District’s motion for summary judgment and in support of his
`
`own cross motion for summary judgment. (Plaintiff’s Opp., generally; Costanzo Aff., ¶¶
`
`22-32, 43, 45).
`
`43. However, Dr. Kraizer’s “expert” report is inadmissible, speculative,
`
`conclusory, and must be disregarded.
`
`44. Dr. Kraizer’s report was submitted as an attachment to Plaintiff’s
`
`
`
`7
`
`7 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`attorney affirmation and was neither sworn to nor affirmed. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. I). Dr.
`
`Kraizer did not submit an affidavit.
`
`45. Accordingly, Dr. Kraizer’s report is inadmissible and cannot be used
`
`to either defeat the District’s motion for summary judgment or support Plaintiff’s cross
`
`motion for summary judgment. The report and any argument based thereon must be
`
`disregarded by the Court. (See Reply Memorandum of Law).
`
`46.
`
`Irrespective of the report’s inadmissibility, the report should be
`
`disregarded because it is speculative, conclusory, unsupported and inherently flawed.
`
`47.
`
`In fact, the opinions offered by Dr. Kraizer have been disregarded as
`
`speculative and conclusory in at least one other CVA case. See T.S. v. Holland Central
`
`School Dist., Erie County Supreme Court, Hon. D. Chimes, J.S.C., Index No.
`
`808449/2020 (May 1, 2023), attached as Exhibit A.
`
`48. Dr. Kraizer cites virtually no support for her opinions, and the
`
`authorities she does cite are entirely inapplicable to sexual abuse by educators in the
`
`school context. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. I).
`
`49.
`
`For example, Dr. Kraizer’s opinion relies heavily on the Social
`
`Services Law, which addressed abuse by parents and others legally responsible for a
`
`child’s care, not abuse in an educational setting. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. I, pp. 7-8, 13-17).
`
`50.
`
`Further, Dr. Kraizer makes the statement “[e]ducator sexual
`
`misconduct has long been recognized,” and cites three sources presumably to support
`
`this statement. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. I, p. 8).
`
`51. However, these sources say nothing about educator sexual
`
`misconduct, and only discuss the educator’s role in helping to identify and prevent abuse
`
`
`
`8
`
`8 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`by parents. Attached as Exhibits B and C are copies of Laurel Richard’s article “Can the
`
`Schools Help Prevent Child Abuse?” and George Murdock’s article “The Abused Child
`
`and the School System.” Although the District was unable to locate a copy of David
`
`Martin’s 1973 article “The Growing Horror of Child Abuse and the Undeniable Role of the
`
`Schools in Putting an End to It,” a 1976 report issued by the U.S. Department of Health,
`
`Education and Welfare entitled “Child Abuse and Neglect: The Problem and Its
`
`Management, Volume 1- An Overview of the Problem” references the 1973 article and
`
`does not address educator sexual abuse.
`
`52.
`
`In fact, it was not until 2001 that New York State first addressed the
`
`problem of sexual abuse in schools with the enactment of Article 23-B of the New York
`
`Education Law entitled “Child Abuse in an Educational Setting.” (Affidavit of Elizabeth
`
`Jeglic, ¶ 16).
`
`53. Dr. Kraizer purports to opine on adequacy of the District’s policies,
`
`procedures, and training, but fails to cite anything to establish the standard of care at the
`
`time. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. I).
`
`54. Dr. Kraizer’s report is entirely conclusory, fails to establish a
`
`foundation for her opinions, and must be disregarded.
`
`The District’s Policies and Procedures Conformed to the Standard of Care
`
`55.
`
`In response to Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, the
`
`District submits the affidavit of Dr. Elizabeth Jeglic, an expert in the field of sexual abuse,
`
`grooming behaviors, historical sexual abuse, and institutional responsibility for the
`
`prevention of sexual abuse. (Jeglic Aff., ¶¶ 1-5).
`
`56. Sexual abuse by educators and individuals employed in child serving
`
`
`
`9
`
`9 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`organizations was not well researched or understood in the 1980s. (Jeglic Aff. ¶ 9).
`
`Accordingly, it was not widely believed or understood in either the law enforcement
`
`community or the education field that sexual abuse by educators was a threat to students
`
`that needed to be addressed at that time. (Jeglic Aff., ¶ 9, Ex. B, p. 2).
`
`57.
`
`The risk of sexual abuse in schools was not widely known until the
`
`early 2000s, and it was not until 2001 that policies and procedures for reporting,
`
`investigating and identifying educator sexual misconduct were standardized. (Jeglic Aff.,
`
`¶¶ 13-16, Ex. B, p. 2).
`
`58.
`
`The behaviors of individuals in child serving organizations such as
`
`schools that we consider to be “grooming” today, were not understood to be warning signs
`
`of possible sexual abuse in the 1980s. (Jeglic Aff. ¶ 17, Ex. B, p. 3-4).
`
`59.
`
`“Sexual grooming” only began to be recognized by researchers in
`
`the early 2000s. (Jeglic Aff. ¶ 18, Ex. B, p. 3).
`
`60.
`
`The behaviors Plaintiff identifies as “grooming” would not have been
`
`recognized by the District as potential warning signs of sexual abuse based upon what
`
`was known in the 1980s. (Jeglic Aff. ¶ 19, Ex. B, pp. 3-4).
`
`61. Based upon Houseman’s publicly observable behavior in the school
`
`and community, the District could not have known Houseman was a danger to Plaintiff.
`
`(Jeglic Aff. ¶ 20, Ex. B, p. 3).
`
`62. Educator sexual abuse prevention training was not standard practice
`
`in school systems in the United States in the 1980s. (Jeglic Aff. ¶ 21, Ex. B, p. 5).
`
`63. By promptly reporting the allegations of abuse to law enforcement
`
`when the allegations arose, the District’s actions were in line with mandated reporter
`
`
`
`10
`
`10 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`guidelines and met or exceeded standard practice at the time. (Jeglic Aff. ¶ 26, Ex. B, p.
`
`6).
`
`The District Did Not Negligently Hire, Supervise, or Retain Houseman
`
`64.
`
`To state a claim for negligent hiring, training, retention and
`
`supervision, a plaintiff must establish that the employer knew or should have known of
`
`the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury. (See Reply
`
`Memorandum of Law).
`
`65. As established above, and in all other papers submitted in support of
`
`this motion, the District had no notice of Houseman’s propensities until 1990, and
`
`therefore did not negligently supervise, hire, train or retain Houseman.
`
`66.
`
`The District produced evidence regarding Houseman’s hiring,
`
`including Houseman’s personnel file, which included his application for employment.
`
`(Marek Aff., Ex. A pp. 000360-000361). Houseman was appointed and confirmed by the
`
`Board of Education. (SOF, ¶ 22). Ms. Hurtgam and Ms. Townsend, both of whom were
`
`hired around the time of Houseman testified that they were interviewed by someone from
`
`the District. (Costanzo Aff., Ex. F, pp. 23-24; Costanzo Aff., Ex. G, p. 23).
`
`67.
`
` There is nothing to suggest that Houseman was not interviewed
`
`prior to being hired.
`
`68. Regardless, it is undisputed that prior to 1990, Houseman had no
`
`criminal record, and there is nothing in Houseman’s background that would cause a
`
`reasonably prudent employer to further investigate. (SOF ¶ 43).
`
`69.
`
`Further, the District did not negligently retain Houseman. As soon as
`
`the District learned of Houseman’s propensities, he was reported to law enforcement and
`
`
`
`11
`
`11 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`removed from the District.
`
`70. Ms. Bane did not have notice of Houseman’s propensities during the
`
`1986-1987 school year, and Plaintiff’s attempt to create a question of fact by
`
`mischaracterizing Ms. Bane’s testimony fails.
`
`71. At her deposition, Ms. Bane was asked whether she remembered
`
`any circumstance where she saw Mr. Houseman interacting with students. Ms. Bane
`
`replied that she did not understand the question because she was a teacher. (Costanzo
`
`Aff., Ex. D, p. 34).
`
`72. Plaintiff’s counsel then asked Ms. Bane “what specifically [she]
`
`remember[ed], if anything, about Mr. Houseman’s interactions with his students that [she]
`
`directly observed.” (Id.). To which Ms. Bane replied that she didn’t have any specific
`
`recollection. (Id.).
`
`73. Ms. Bane did not testify that she could not recall Houseman ever
`
`interacting with students, just that she could not recall any specific details about
`
`Houseman’s interactions with students. (Id.).
`
`74.
`
` Regardless, Ms. Bane unequivocally denied ever seeing Houseman
`
`abuse Plaintiff or act inappropriately with Plaintiff or any other student. (Hayes Aff. Ex. G,
`
`p. 9-10, 13-14).
`
`Plaintiff’s Breach of Statutory Duty to Report Claim Fails
`
`75. Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the Social Services Law also fails.
`
`76. Plaintiff admits that he did not tell anyone at the District about the
`
`abuse, and there is no evidence to suggest that anyone at the District knew of the alleged
`
`abuse.
`
`
`
`12
`
`12 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`77.
`
`Therefore, the District did not knowingly and willfully fail to report
`
`the abuse in violation of its obligations under the Social Services Law.
`
`78.
`
` Regardless, the reporting requirements of the Social Services Law
`
`only apply to abuse committed by an individual legally responsible for a child’s care.
`
`Because Houseman was unquestionably not responsible for Plaintiff’s care, the reporting
`
`requirements of the Social Services Law do not apply.
`
`Conclusion
`
`79. Based on the foregoing, as well as the arguments set forth in the
`
`previously submitted papers and the accompanying memorandum of law, the District
`
`Defendants request that this Court grant its motion for summary judgment dismissing
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint, in its entirety and with prejudice, and denying Plaintiff’s cross motion
`
`for summary judgment, along with such other and further relief the Court deems
`
`necessary.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Meghan M. Hayes
`Meghan M. Hayes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`13 of 14
`
`
`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2023 02:56 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2023
`
`
`
`WORD COUNT LIMIT CERTIFICATION
`
` I
`
` hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b that the foregoing Affirmation was
`prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word.
`
`Type. A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:
`
`
`Name of typeface: Arial
`
`
`Point size:
`
`
`Line Spacing: Double
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Word Count. The total number of words in this Affirmation, inclusive of point headings
`and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations,
`proof of service and this Statement is 3,178 words.
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`October 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` s/ Meghan M. Hayes
` Meghan M. Hayes
`
`
`
`14
`
`14 of 14
`
`