Griffin v. Gregory's Coffee Mgmt. LLC
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2020-03902,Index No. 153397/18,13226 |
| Citation | 143 N.Y.S.3d 27,191 A.D.3d 600 |
| Parties | Nicole GRIFFIN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. GREGORY'S COFFEE MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
191 A.D.3d 600
143 N.Y.S.3d 27
Nicole GRIFFIN, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
GREGORY'S COFFEE MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants–Appellants.
13226
Index No. 153397/18
Case No. 2020-03902
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED February 25, 2021
White and Williams LLP, New York (George C. Morrison of counsel), for appellants.
Bouklas Gaylord LLP, Commack (James Bouklas of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Kennedy, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed), entered on or about June 9, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the class allegations asserted in plaintiff's amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The order appealed from involves a pre-certification motion to dismiss. In reviewing
these types of motions, this Court has held that it will generally be "premature to dismiss class action allegations before an answer is served or pre-certification discovery has been taken" ( Downing v. First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 107 A.D.3d 86, 91, 965 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 2013], affd 24 N.Y.3d 382, 998 N.Y.S.2d 729, 23 N.E.3d 997 [2014] ). A defendant will succeed on a pre-certification motion to dismiss only where it "appears conclusively from the complaint and from the affidavits that there was as a matter of law no basis for class action relief" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, to succeed on the underlying motion, defendants had the burden of showing "conclusively" that there was no basis for class action relief as a matter of law ( id. ).
Defendants have not "conclusively" shown that there is no commonality as to the questions of law or fact that relate to the proposed class ( id. ; CPLR 901[a][2] ). Among other things, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Part 146 of the New York Minimum Wage Order because they did not provide their employees with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. Best Prof'l Home Care Agency, Inc.
... ... (see Maddicks, 34 N.Y.3d at 123-128; Griffin v ... Gregory's Coffee Mgt., 191 A.D.3d 600, 600-601 [1st ... Dept ... ...
-
Mera v. Milos HY, Inc.
... ... been taken" ( Griffin v Gregory's Coffee Mgt ... LLC , 191 A.D.3d 600 [1st Dept 2021], quoting ... ...
-
Agujlar v. Uncommon Grounds Enters.
...motion to dismiss, a defendant must conclusively show that there is no basis for class action relief as a matter of law (Griffin at 601). Plaintiffs Conditional Waiver and CPLR § 901(b) The Court finds Plaintiffs conditional waiver of his individual claims for statutory penalties in the eve......
-
Agujlar v. Uncommon Grounds Enters.
...motion to dismiss, a defendant must conclusively show that there is no basis for class action relief as a matter of law (Griffin at 601). have conclusively shown that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint seeking class relief is barred as a matter of law. CPLR § 901(b) provides that "unless a statut......