De La Rosa v 252 Seventh SPE Owner LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
De La Rosa v 252 Seventh SPE Owner LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 31476(U) July 14, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 157926/2016 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2017 02:36 PM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 157926/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. KATHRYNE. FREED, J.S.C. Justice 2 --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------X JOYCE DE LA ROSA, INDEX NO. 157926/2016 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. -v252 SEVENTH SPE OWNER LLC, WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC. 001 DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number were read on this application to/for Dismissal Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the motion is granted. Plaintiff Joyce De La Rosa alleges disability discrimination based on accessibility barriers at a Whole Foods Market owned by defendants 252 Seventh SPE OWner LLC ("252 Seventh") and Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. ("Whole Foods"). Defendants move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), dismissing the complaint based on the dismissal, with prejudice, of plaintiffs identical claims in a prior federal court action. Defendants also move, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, for sanctions against plaintiff based on the allegedly frivolous nature of this action. 157926/2016 DE LA ROSA, JOYCE vs. 252 SEVENTH SPE OWNER LLC 1 of 7 Page 1of7 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2017 02:36 PM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 157926/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2017 BACKGROUND Plaintiff is disabled and uses a wheelchair (Exhibit D to motion, complaint, at ,-i 6). Defendant 252 Seventh owns property located at 252 Seven_th Avenue ("the property"), and defendant Whole Foods lea~es the property and operates it as a grocery store (id., at ,-i,-i 7-9). Plaintiff alleges that there are numerous architectural barriers at defendants' grocery store that restrict plaintiff's access (id., at ,-it 3). She asserts that defendants made substantial alterations to the Property in 2001, but failed to comply with various state and local laws with regard to access for disabled persons. She asserts that the property has inaccessible bathrooms, check-out aisles, and service counters; insufficient maneuvering clearances and excessively sloped paths; and lacks handrails (id., at ,-i,-i 14-20). On May 22, 2015, plaintiff commenced an action in federal court ("the federal action") against the same defendants, Iasserting the same barriers to access to the property (Exhibit A to motion, federal complaint, at ,-i,-i 13-24). She brought claims alleging violations of the New York State Executive Law§ 296, the Administrative Code of the City of New York ("the Administrative Code"), New York Civil Rights Law §§ 40-c and 40-d, and common law negligence. She also brought a claim for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (42 USC §§ 12181 et seq) (Exhibit A to motio~, federal complaint, at ,-i,-i 51-85). Based on these claims, plaintiff sought damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to both the ADA (42 USC § 12205) and Administrative Code § 8-502 (Exhibit A to motion, federal complaint, at ,-i 90). Plaintiff and defendants conducted discovery in the federal action, including an expert inspection of the property. On June 3, 2016, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the .barriers alleged in the complaint were either remedied or were 157926/2016 DE LA ROSA, JOYCE vs. 252 SEVENTH SPE OWNER LLC 2 of 7 Page 2 of 7 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2017 02:36 PM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 157926/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2017 not violations of the ADA, the New York City Building Code, or the state and local law claims alleged in the complaint. On August 9, 2016, the plai"ntiff, who did not oppose the summary judgment motion, stipulated to dismiss the complaint with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a) (2) (Exhibit C to motion). The stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice was so-ordered by the federal court (Exhibit B to motion). Six weeks after the discontinuance of the federal action, plaintiff commenc-ed the captioned action seeking recovery for the same disability discrimination under Executive Law § 296, New York State Civil Rights Law§ 40, Administrative Code § 8-107, andsommon law negligence (Exhibit D to motion). The complaint in this matter is virtually identical to that in the federal action, except that it omits the allegations regarding violations of the ADA (compare federal complaint, at ,-i,-i 1-2, 5-13, 18, 21-23, 25-27, 29-36, 51-90 with the complaint at ,-i,-i 1-2, 5~13, 15, 17-19, 21, 23-79). Defendants move to dismiss the complaint in the captioned action with prejudice based on the doctrines of res~udicata and collateral estoppel. They also seek sanctions in the form of their attorneys' fees, pursuant to 22 NYC RR 130-1.1, on the ground that this action is frivolous. DISCUSSION The motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed. The request for sanctions is denied. The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, is designed to "relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication" (Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 [1980]; Insurance 157926/2016 DE LA ROSA, JOYCE vs. 252 SEVENTH SPE OWNER LLC 3 of 7 Page 3 of 7 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2017 02:36 PM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 157926/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2017 Co. of State of Pa. v HSBC Bank USA, 10 NY3d 32, 38 [2008]). Under the doctrine, a final judgment on the merits precludes a party or its privy from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action (Allen v McCurry, 449 US at 94). Under New York's transactional approach, where a claim is brought to a final coneiusion, "all other claims arising out of the same transaction or ser~es of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (0 'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [ 1981 ]). The doctrine bars not only claims that were raised, but also those that could have been raised, if they arose from the same transaction· or series of transactions (Marinelli Assoc. v Helmsley-Noyes Co., Inc., 265 AD2d l, 5.[!51 Dept 2000]; Lane v Birnbaum, 258 AD2d 389, 389 [!5 1 Dept 1999]). A dismissal with prejudice by a federal court in a prior action between the same parties is e~titled to res judicata effect, and cannot be collaterally attacked in state court (Dipoumbi v New York City Police Dept., 150 AD3d 467, 468 [JS1 Dept 2017]; Lane v Birnbaum, 258 AD2d at 389; LaVigna v Capital Cities/ABC, 245 AD2d 75, 76 [!51 Dept 1997]). Here, plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because she agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of the prior action alleging the identical claims (see Gropper v 200 F!fth Owner LLC, _ AD3d _, 2017 NY Slip Op 05183, 2017 WL 2744273 [I st Dept 2017]). Initially, plaintiff sought a voluntary partial dismissal of her federal action after discovery and, after defendants submitted a summary judgment motion, which she failed to oppose (see Exhibit C to motion, federal court transcript, at 3 ), plaintiff then consented to a full dismissal with prejudice, which was so-ordered by the court (id. at 3-4). "A voluntary dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes" (Gropper v 200 Fifth Owner LLC, _ AD3d _, 2017 NY Slip Op 05183, * 1). Plaintiff discontinued the federal court action despite clearly 4 of 7 4C'70.">.C:l">n4.a: nc I A Dl"\C!A 11"\Vl"'"C ... - ">C"1 C!C\IC .. ITU C!DC l"\\AB.ICD I I,... [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2017 02:36 PM 5] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 157926/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2017 having a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims (see EPD Med. Computer Sys., Inc. v United States, 480 F3d 621, 626 [2d Cir 2007]). Plaintiff maintains that the captioned action is not subject to dismissal because she is ·alleging "new" claims in this action that consist of continuing violations of the state disability discrimination provisions that she alleged in the federal action (see e.g. Executive Law§ 296 [2]; Administrative Code § 8-107 [4 ]). The complaint in this action alleges that the "barriers to access within defendants' place of public accommodation continue to exist and deter plaintiff," such as that there are inaccessible· maneuvering clearances, excessively sloped travel paths, and inaccessible service counters (Exhibit D to motion, complaint, at~~ 20, 27-28). However, these allegations do not constitute a new claim (see Gropper v 200 F{fth Owner LLC, _ AD3d _, 2017 NY Slip Op 05183, * I). Rather, they are simply "additional instances of what was previously asserted," which she had a full and fair opportunity to litigate (id.). The vague allegations about new continuing violations set forth by plaintiffs counsel (affirmation in opposition at 10) are unavailing, as they are not set forth in the complaint or in evidentiary form. Moreover, plaintiff was aware of such issues during the federal action upon the inspection of the property, and could have raised them in that proceeding (Gropper v 200 F!fth Owner LLC, _ AD3d _, 2017 NY Slip Op 05183, * 1). In fact, plaintiffs counsel specifically stated on the record in federal court that additional violations had be~n uncovered during the inspection, but indicated that his client would be better off withdrawing the federal action and deciding whether she wanted to continue the action in another forum (Exhibit C, federal court tr., at 3). Thus, plaintiff was aware of the additional violations at the time she agreed to dismiss her claims with prejudice in federal court, did not reserve her right to pursue additional violations or limit the claims disposed of to those actually asserted in the federal action and, thus, her claims in 157926/2016 DE LA ROSA, JOYCE vs. 252 SEVENTH SPE OWNER LLC 5 of 7 Page 5 of 7 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2017 02:36 PM 6] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 157926/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2017 this action are precluded (see Fifty CPW Tenants Corp. v Epstein, 16 AD3d 292, 293 [I 51 Dept 2005)). With respect to plaintiffs request for attorneys' fees as a "prevailing party" pursuant to Administrative Code § 8-502 (g), plaintiff also sought this relief in her federal court complaint (Exhibit A to motion, federal complaint, at ~ 90). She was given the opportunity in the federal action to pursue all her claims, and did so for over a year, conducting discovery, and getting to the summary judgment motion stage. However, she chose to discontinue all of her claims, including the request in her federal complaint for "attorneys' fees, expenses and costs pursuant to the ADA and the Administrative Code" (id.). Since she cannot now pursue a separate cause of action solely for such fees (Gropper v 200 Fifth Owner LLC, _ AD3d _, 2017 NY Slip Op 05183, * I), the complaint is dismissed. Finally, defendants' request for sanctions is denied. While plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, her pursuit of her claims can be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension or modification of existing law (see Exhibit A to plaintiff affirmation in opposition). In light of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the branch of defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with costs and disbursements to said defendants as ta~ed by the Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further 157926/2016 DE LA ROSA, JOYCE vs. 252 SEVENTH SPE OWNER LLC 6 of 7 Page 6 of 7 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2017 02:36 PM 7] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 INDEX NO. 157926/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2017 ORDERED that the branch of the defendant's motion seeking sanctions is denied; and it is further ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of the court. 7/14/2017 DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D B NON-FINAL DISPOSlTION DENIED GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 157926/2016 DE LA ROSA, JOYCE vs. 252 SEVENTH SPE OWNER LLC 7 of 7 D D OTHER REFERENCE Page 7 of 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
