Kouri v. Eataly NY LLC

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
Citation2020 NY Slip Op 33194 (U)
Docket NumberIndex No. 158476/2014
PartiesKIP KOURI, Plaintiff v. EATALY NY LLC d/b/a EATALY NYC, EATALY USA LLC, EATALY WINE LLC, LSEBG LLC d/b/a BIRRERIA, 200 FIFTH OWNER LLC, ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES LLC, YOHANI MENA, JORDANO MORAN, and MICHAEL DE LA SANTOS, Defendants
Decision Date25 September 2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 261

DECISION AND ORDER

LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.:

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that on July 17, 2014, defendants Mena, Moran, and de la Santos, security guards employed by defendant AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC (AlliedBarton Security defendants), injured plaintiff when removing him from restaurant premises leased by defendants Eataly NY LLC, Eataly USA LLC, Eataly Wine LLC, and LSEBG LLC and owned by defendant 200 Fifth Owner LLC (Eataly defendants). Plaintiff sues defendants to recover damages for negligence, assault, battery, discrimination, and aiding and abetting discrimination. He has discontinued without opposition his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Dram Shop Act, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 11-101(1), and his duplicative claims for negligence, discussed below. See C.P.L.R. § 3217(a)(2). The Eataly defendants and the AlliedBarton Security defendants separately move for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. C.P.L.R. § 3212(b). For the reasons explained below, the court grants defendants' motions in part.

II. ASSAULT AND BATTERY CLAIMS

Plaintiff claims assault and battery against only the AlliedBarton Security defendants. They maintain that plaintiff's conduct justified their use of physical force to remove plaintiff from the restaurant. Plaintiff counters that the AlliedBarton Security defendants escalated a verbal argument and that in the absence of any risk of harm to them or to customers there was no justification for their use of force.

To establish battery, plaintiff must show that the AlliedBarton Security defendants intentionally subjected him to offensive or harmful physical contact without his consent and without justification. Rivera v. State, 34 N.Y.3d 383, 389 (2019); Nicholson v. Luce, 55 A.D.3d 416, 416 (1st Dep't 2008); Charkhy v. Altman, 252 A.D.2d 413, 414 (1st Dep't 1998); Hassanv. Marriott Corp., 243 A.D.2d 406, 407 (1st Dep't 1997). To establish assault, he must show that they placed him in fear of battery. Rivera v. State, 34 N.Y.3d at 389; Nicholson v. Luce, 55 A.D.3d 416; Holtz v. Wildenstein & Co., 261 A.D.2d 336, 336 (1st Dep't 1999); Charkhy v. Altman, 252 A.D.2d at 414. See Mitchell v. New York Univ., 129 A.D.3d 542, 543 (1st Dep't 2015); Okoli v. Paul Hastings LLP, 117 A.D.3d 539, 540 (1st Dep't 2014).

The authenticated video evidence and the deposition testimony establish that Mena, Moran, and de la Santos grabbed plaintiff while escorting him out of the Eataly defendants' premises and held him down on the sidewalk outside the premises. The videos and testimony depicting the security guards grabbing and pushing plaintiff satisfy the offensive contact element of battery. Cagliostro v. Madison Sq. Garden, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 534, 535 (1st Dep't 2010); Smiley v. North Gen. Hosp., 59 A.D.3d 179, 180 (1st Dep't 2009). The conflicting accounts between plaintiff's testimony and the guards' testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the use of force to remove plaintiff, which the parties' video evidence does not resolve, leave factual issues whether the contact was justified so as to defeat the assault and battery claims. Shields v. City of New York, 141 A.D.3d 421, 422 (1st Dep't 2016). See Elias v. City of New York,173 A.D.3d 538, 539 (1st Dep't 2019); Fauntleroy v. EMM Group Holdings LLC, 133 A.D.3d 452, 453 (1st Dep't 2015); Salichs v. City of New York, 127 A.D.3d 406, 407 (1st Dep't 2015).

AlliedBarton Security is liable for the actions of Mena, Moran and de la Santos to the extent that they were acting within the scope of their job duties or furthering AlliedBarton Security's business. Gregory v. National Amusements, Inc., 179 A.D.3d 468, 469 (1st Dep't 2020); Salem v. MacDougal Rest. Inc., 148 A.D.3d 501, 502 (1st Dep't 2017). Conflicting testimony whether the Eataly defendants' employees directed the guards raises factual issues whether the guards were acting pursuant to the Eataly defendants' direction and, if so, whether those acts were within the scope of the guards' employment. Hormigas v. Vill. E. Towers, Inc., 137 A.D.3d 406, 407 (1st Dep't 2016). To the extent that the parties' experts establish a security industry standard, their conflicting opinions whether the AlliedBarton Security defendants complied with that standard also raise factual issues whether their use of force was justified. Morera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 182 A.D.3d 509, 509 (1st Dep't 2020); Ayers v. Mohan, 182 A.D.3d 479, 480 (1st Dep't 2020); Hornsby v. Cathedral Parkway Apts. Corp., 179 A.D.3d 584, 584 (1st Dep't 2020); Shewbaran v. Laufer, 177 A.D.3d 510, 511 (1stDep't 2019).

III. NEGLIGENCE CLAIM

Plaintiff's first claim alleges that the Eataly defendants negligently allowed him to become injured through their employees' actions and failed to provide adequate security. Plaintiff discontinues his fifth and seventh claims alleging that defendants breached a duty to prevent foreseeable harm to plaintiff, as the two claims are identical and merely restate his first claim using different terminology.

The only harm that plaintiff alleges arose from the actions of Mena, Moran, and de la Santos. The Eataly defendants are not liable" for the injury caused by Mena, Moran, and de la Santos, independent contractors, unless the Eataly defendants actually supervised the security guards, rather than merely retaining overall supervisory authority. Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C., 176 A.D.3d 587, 588 (1st Dep't 2019); McLaughlan v. BR Guest, Inc., 149 A.D.3d 519, 520 (1st Dep't 2017); Alves v. Petik, 136 A.D.3d 426, 426 (1st Dep't 2016) Fernandez v. 707, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 539, 540 (1st Dep't 2011). While Conor Martin, Eataly's assistant general manager, testified at his deposition that neither he nor Eataly employees supervised the guards, he also testified that Eataly managers were permitted to use theguards to ask unruly patrons to leave the premises and escort those persons out. Moran also testified inconsistently regarding whether the Eataly managers directed or controlled the security guards. The other AlliedBarton Security defendants testified that the Eataly managers did direct the security guards. This conflicting testimony raises factual and credibility issues regarding the Eataly defendants' control over the security guards. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Style Mgt. Assoc. Corp., 28 N.Y.3d 1018, 1019 (2016); S.A. De Obras y Servicios, COPASA v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 170 A.D.3d 468, 473 (1st Dep't 2019); Osguera v. Lincoln Props. LLC, 147 A.D.3d 704, 705 (1st Dep't 2017).

Plaintiff contends that the Eataly defendants are liable for the AlliedBarton Security defendants' negligence regardless of the AlliedBarton Security defendants' status as independent contractors, based on the Eataly defendants' non-delegable duty to maintain safety at their premises. Kleeman v. Rheingold, 81 N.Y.2d 270, 274 (1993); Vullo v. Hillman Hous. Corp., 173 A.D.3d 600, 600 (1st Dep't 2019); Ehrenberg v. Regier, 142 A.D.3d 765, 766 (1st Dep't 2016); Nelson v. E&M 2710 Clarendon LLC, 129 A.D.3d 568, 569 (1st Dep't 2015). The Eataly defendants are not liable under that theory, however, because plaintiff claims thatonly the AlliedBarton Security defendants' intentional conduct caused his injury. Although the AlliedBarton Security defendants seek summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's negligence claims, plaintiff does not claim the AlliedBarton Security defendants' negligence. Palker v. MacDougal Rest. Inc., 96 A.D.3d 629, 630 (1st Dep't 2012); Cagliostro v. Madison Sq. Garden, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 534, 535 (1st Dep't 2010); Smiley v. North Gen. Hosp., 59 A.D.3d 179, 180 (1st Dep't 2009).

IV. DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Plaintiff claims that defendants deprived him of access to a place of public accommodation based on his sexual orientation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and aided and abetted in such discrimination. The NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a), prohibits a place of public accommodation from denying persons any "accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges" because of the persons' sexual orientation. The NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(4), similarly prohibits a place or provider of a public accommodation from denying persons any "accommodations, advantages, services, facilities or privileges" because of the persons' sexual orientation. The NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(6), prohibits aiding and abetting discrimination.Griffin v. Sirva, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 174, 187 (2017). The NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(6), prohibits defendants from aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing any act forbidden under the NYCHRL. Schindler v. Plaza Constr. LLC, 154 A.D.3d 495, 496 (1st Dep't 2017).

Defendants contend that the evidence nowhere shows any discrimination against plaintiff based on his sexual orientation. The Eataly defendants maintain that, rather than showing that their employees engaged in discrimination against plaintiff based on his sexual orientation, the evidence shows that they requested his removal from their restaurant based on his disruptive and argumentative conduct. The AlliedBarton Security defendants maintain that their guards' offensive remarks and gestures alone do not establish discrimination and that the Eataly defendants directed plaintiff's removal. In opposition, plaintiff contends that the guards' anti-homosexual remarks and gestures, which the Eataly defendants condoned, sufficiently demonstrate discrimination based on his sexual orientation.

Homophobic slurs in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT