Conte v Clarins U.S.A., Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Conte v Clarins U.S.A., Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 33516(U) June 6, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 115817/10 Judge: Milton A. Tingling 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. '?CA}lHED0~,6110/20-;2------------------ [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MtLl'ON A.TIMGLING . .. J.SwC. PART <t!{_ Justice Index Number: 115817/2010 CONTE, LINDA INDEX NO.-----...... vs. MOTION DATE CLARINS, U.S.A., INC. SEQUENCE NUMBER · 002 3/1,ift~ MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __ SUMMARY JUDGMENT The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ , were read on this motion to/for-------------~ Notice of MotJonfOrder to Show Cause - Affidavlt9 - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Replylng Affidavits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Upon the foregoing papeNJ, It Is ordered that this motion Is JL Ct ~/ 0 CASE DISPOSED Alt:.~~ t',(fl)/1., ___,,,~_...._! __., J.S.C. _ _ Dated: 1. CHECK ONE: .....................................................~ ... ,........... 0? I No(s)._ _ _ _ __ I No(s). - - - - - 1No(s). - - - - - - ~FINAL DISPOSITION / "''" 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ...........................MOTION IS: GRANTED ~NIED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 0DONOTPOST 0 GRANTED fN PART OTHER SUBMIT ORDER 0 FIDUCIARY APPOINTlVIENT 0 REFERENCE [* 2] SUPRl,:ME COURT or THE STATE or NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 44 ---------------------------------------------------------------------)( LINDA CONTE AND GERALD CONTE, Plaintiffs, - against- Index No. 115817/10 DECSION AND ORDER CLARINS U.S.A., INC., CLARINS SA, CLARINS GROUP NORTH AMERlCA INC., "CLARINS", MACY'S, INC. (l<..mnerly known as Federated Department Stores, lnc.), MACY'S REAL ESTATE, LLC, FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., "MACY'S," and "JOTfN DOE," as further described in the annexed complaint, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------)( Background In this action for personal injury, Plaintiff Linda Conte alleges that she sustained injuries when a make-up chair located in a Macy's retail store broke and stuck her. Plaintiff alleges in her bill of particulars that, at the time of the accident, she was employed at this particular Macy's location. Plaintiff alleges that damages were the result of Defendants failure to keep customer make-up chairs in a safe, proper and secure manner. Defendants federated Department Stores, Inc., Macy's Inc., Macy's Corporate Services, Inc., Macy's Real Estate, LLC and Macy's (collectively referred to herein as "the Macy's Defendants") now moves, Pursuant to CPLR 3212 and Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. In their motion, the Macy's Defendants assert that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., who was the direct employer of Plaintiff and was not party to this suit, and the Macy's Defendants are [* 3] under common ownership and therefore, pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law 29(6), the exclusive remedies availahlc to ~~ 11 and Plaintiff arc those provided by Workers' Compensation. Furthermore, Defendants provide a Worker's Compensation Settlement which demonstrates that Plaintiff received Worker's Compensation benefits for her injury. In addition, the Macy's Defendants move to dismiss the cross claims of the non-Macy's co-defendants. In opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff argues that discovery is necessary on the issue or the relationship between the Macy's Defendants and the non-party Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Plaintiff assctis that Defendants must establish that they exercise complete domination and control of Macys' Retail I Ioldings in order to asscti the Workers' Compensation defense. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants' motion is denied in its entirety lo allow for discovery cxcl usi vcly limited to the issue of the relationship between the Macy's De lend ants and the non-party entity, Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Discussion New York Courts have held that "The remedies provided by Workers' Compensation Law are the exclusive remedies available to an employee injured during the course of her employment." C'roston v. Montefiore Ho.spill7l, 229 J\.D.2d 330, 645 N.Y.S.2d 471 (1996). Furthermore, New York Courts have also held that, "an employer's organization into separate legal entities does not preclude a finding that an employee is limited to benefits under the W orkcrs' Compensation I ,aw." Ramnarine v. Memorial Ctr. for Cancer and Allied Diseases, 281 A.O. 2d 218, 722 N.Y.S.2d 493 (2001). However, it has also be held that, in order to assert a Workers' Compensation defense, a "parent company must exercise complete domination and [* 4] control of the subsidiary's day-to-day operations. Dennihy v. Episcopal Health Services, 283 A.D.2d 542, 724 N.Y.S.2d 768 (2001). In /)ennihy, the court held that even though the two entities in question were related and the plaintiff had received benefits under a joint Workers' Compensation insurance policy, there were ''triable issues of fact as lo whether the parent corporation exercised such control as to entitle it to raise the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation." Id at 54]. Thus, proper resolution of the case at bar requires a categorical understanding or the relationship between the non-party Macys' Retail Holdings, Inc. and the Macy's Defendants and the liabilities of the parties that result therefrom. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion is denied in its entirety for the purpose of allowing further discovery exclusively limited to the issue of the relationship between the Macy's Defendants and Macy's Retail I foldings, Inc. Dated: June 6, 2012 -~11r!4-~ ttON. MILTON A. TINGLING. 'I J.S.C.

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.