STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF RENSSELAER

Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc. Plaintiff -against- ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, & COUNTERCLAIM Michelle Ninstant Defendant Index No.:

ANSWER

As and for her answer to the complaint herein, the defendant, Michelle Ninstant, respectfully

shows and alleges as follows:

1. Admits the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 of the complaint.

2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegation(s) of Paragraph 3 of the complaint.

3. Denies the allegations of Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

4. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.

Plaintiff breached its contractual obligations by not providing a fully trained service dog

as contracted. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a sick dog, unable to perform as

a service dog, and failed to provide the proper training for dog.

Second Affirmative Defense

5. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Defendant was

fraudulently induced into by the Plaintiff to sign the contract in question. The Plaintiff

failed to disclose the existence of a contract to the Defendant until after the Defendant

had paid money to the Plaintiff. The Defendant was forced to sign the contract or lose the

money she had paid and the dog she had paid for.

Third Affirmative Defense

6. The contract is unconscionable. The Defendant had no input into the forming of the

contract. The contract provides for the protection of the Plaintiff only and gives no

bargaining power to the Defendant upon Plaintiff’s breach of contract.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

7. The contract is illegal. The contract entails a fundraising clause as well as instructs the

Defendant on how to fundraise for the Plaintiffs. However, at the time the contract was

signed by the parties, the Plaintiffs were not legally registered to fundraise or accept

fundraised monies in the state of New York.

COUNTERCLAIM

8. Plaintiff provided Defendant with an untrained dog and failed to provide training for said

dog to become a service dog for Defendant’s child.

9. Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a dog that was sick and requires continuous

medical treatment.

10. Plaintiff has caused the Defendant emotional stress in due to the lies regarding the dog’s

ability to perform, putting the life of the Plaintiff’s child at risk. Plaintiff has lost time at

work and time and personal time as a result of ongoing problems with the dog.

11. Upon information and belief, the Defendant has already paid the Plaintiff $7000 towards

the dog and ongoing training for the dog.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this court dismiss the complaint of the Plaintiff herein with

costs and disbursements to the Defendant, together with any other relief the court finds to be just

and proper.

FURTHERMORE, the Defendant demands judgment in the amount of $13,500.00 for ongoing

medical treatment for the dog, lost wages, refund of money already paid to Plaintiff, and lost

wages and also demands that the Plaintiff release any and all claims it may have regarding the

dog.

__________________________ Michelle Ninstant

Defendant