Pierce v. Archer Daniels Midland, Co.

• Docket Number: 535529
• Decision Date: 30 November 2023
• Parties: Debra D. Pierce, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Pierce Sr., Deceased, Appellant, v. Archer Daniels Midland, Co., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 06179

Debra D. Pierce, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Pierce Sr., Deceased, Appellant,
v.
Archer Daniels Midland, Co., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

No. 535529

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

November 30, 2023

Calendar Date: October 10, 2023

Napierski, VanDenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP, Albany (Thomas J. O'Connor of counsel), for appellant.

Tanenbaum Keale LLP, Newark, New Jersey (Timothy R. Freeman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Mackey, JJ.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Henry F. Zwack, J.), entered May 5, 2022 in Columbia County, which granted a motion by defendants Archer Daniels Midland, Co. and ADM Milling, Co. to dismiss, among other things, the complaint.

In January 2020, decedent was fatally injured in a grain elevator during the course of his employment at an industrial milling facility located in the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County. Plaintiff, who was decedent's wife, commenced this action, individually and in her capacity as the administrator of decedent's estate, alleging negligence, violation of the Labor Law, strict products liability, breach of warranty, wrongful death and loss of consortium against, among others, defendant Archer Daniels Midland, Co. (hereinafter ADM) and its subsidiary, defendant ADM Milling, Co. (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants). In lieu of answering, defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against them arguing that the claims were barred under the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11 and 29 (6). Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against defendants, with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals.

"When considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a cause of action, courts must afford the complaint a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the pleading as true, confer on the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference and determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Graves v Stanclift, Ludemann, McMorris & Silvestri, P.C., 174 A.D.3d 1086, 1087 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Singe v Bates Troy, Inc., 206 A.D.3d 1528, 1530 [3d Dept 2022]). "Although this is a liberal standard, it will not save allegations that consist of bare legal conclusions or factual claims that are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence or are inherently incredible" (Johnson v Bruen, 187 A.D.3d 1294, 1294 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see McQuade v Aponte-Loss, 195 A.D.3d 1219, 1220 [3d Dept 2021]). "The question to be resolved on such a motion is not whether the plaintiff can ultimately establish his or her allegations and is likely to prevail, but...