Sanders v Aldi, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Sanders v Aldi, Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 34248(U) February 8, 2019 Supreme Court, Erie County Docket Number: Index No. 806791/2018 Judge: Donna M. Siwek Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 04:03 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 INDEX NO. 806791/2018 INDEX NO. 806791/201 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/11/201 9 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ERIE RAVON SANDERS, Plaintifh v. Index No. 806791/2018 ALDI.INC.• Defendant, Ravon Sanders, pro se Plaintiff 98 Anderson Place Buffalo, New York 14222 Jesse J. Cooke, Esq. 403 Main Street, Suite 700. Brisbane Building Buffalo, New York 14203 Attorneyfor Defendant SIWE~J. , MEMORANDUM DECISION This Memorandum Decision addresses defendant Aldi, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and for sanctions. Defendant"s motion is opposed by plaintiff, Ravon Sanders. After considering all of the papers. relevant case Jaw. oral argwnent and New York General Business Law §218, Defense of Lawful Detention, the Court is compelled to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment without the imposition of costs, fees and sanctions. For purposes of this decision, the court will assume, over the objection of the defendant, that the interaction between the plaintiff and the Aldi Store Manager. Philip Jackson. on January 24, 2018 constituted a "detention". 3 of 7 [*FILED: 2] ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 806791/2018 NO. 806791/2018 INDEX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/11/2019 The Court finds that the defendant has met its burden of establishing as a matter oflaw its entitlement to dismissal of plaintiff's unlawful detention claim because of the protection provided under GBL §218. General Business Law §218 - Defense of Lawful Detentio~ provides in pertinent part that in any action for unlawful detentio~ retail merchants may question customers as to the ownership of any merchandise and that it shall be a defense to an action for unlawful detention if the person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to pennit investigation or questioning by the defendant so long as the defendant had reasonable groW1ds to believe that the person was guilty of committing or attempting to commit larceny on defendant's premises. The statute funher goes on to describe that "reasonable grounds" will include, but will not be limited to, knowledge that a person has concealed possession of unpurchased merchandise and "reasonable time" shall mean the time necessary to permit the person detained to make a statement or refuse to make a statement. General Business Law §218 gives a retail merchant a defense in an action for its detention of a suspected shoplifter, provided that it was reasonable to stop the shopper in the first place and that any such stop was reasonable in terms of its manner and duration. The State of New York has armed shopkeepers with a strong defense by codifying the shopkeeper's privilege in General Business Law §218, Defense of Lawful Detention. The purpose of this privilege is to protect merchants from unlawful detention suits where suspected shoplifters are detained based upon "reasonable grounds" and in a "reasonab]e manner" and for not more than a -~reasonable time". With respect to "reasonableness", General Business Law §218 provides clear guidelines that any detention must take place on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises, which in this case, it did. The privilege does not authorize the talcing of subject's fingerprints unless 2 4 of 7 [*FILED: 3] ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 806791/2018 NO. 806791/2018 INDEX RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/11/2019 authorized, and that did not happen here. With respect to whether a merchant has reasonable grounds to suspect an individual of shoplifting, the law provides that ..reasonable grounds" shall include but not be limited to knowledge that a person has concealed possession of unpurchased merchandise. These IP"Ounds do not depend on whether a crime has been committed, rather. reasonable grounds have been equated to probable cause to arrest. In this particular case, defendant has provided the affidavits of two Aldi sales associates, Deja Higgins, Exhibit "I and Jolm Powell, Exhibit "K", who set forth in their affidavits a description of their impression of the plaintiff's conduct and the reasons for their belief that plaintiff was in the process of concealing merchandise. In evaluating the reasonableness of the "detention", defendant has set forth that Aldi's store manager Philip Jackson responded quickly, and the entire length of the '"detention" as pulled from the video surveillance shows an iµteraction between the manager and the plaintiff of less than four minutes. For the foregoing reasons, we believe defendant has met its burden of establishing that it is entitled to the defense of lawful detention under General Business Law §218. and that plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as a matter of law. We further find that plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact which would necessit.ate a trial in this matter. We agree with defendant that whether plaintiff actually committed shoplifting is ofno consequence to Aldi's defense under the circumstances of this case and GBL §218. Reasonable grounds does not depend upon the guilt or innocence of the accused. The merchant may act upon what appears to be true, even if it turns out to be false, provided he believed it to be true and the appearances are sufficient to justify that such belief is reasonable. See, Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck, Co., 30 N.Y.2d 466; Boose v. City ofRochester, 71 3 5 of 7 [*FILED: 4] ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 806791/2018 INDEX NO. 806791/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/11/2019 A.D.2d 59. The court finds that the affidavits of the two Aldi associates and the affidavit of its manager establish that there was a reasonable basis to question Mr. Sanders. The manner and period of that questioning (less than four minutes) was reasonable in tenns of its length. While we agree that the lawsuit should be dismissed; we deny, however, defendant's request for the imposition of sanctions. The defendant strongly feels that the litigation filed by plaintiff was frivolous in nature and that the video surveillance is glaring evidence that the encounter between the Aldi manager and the plaintiff is not a "'detention" but even assuming it is, it is cloaked in the protection of GBL §218. In support of their request for sanctions, defendant notes that plaintiff, as a prose, filed five prior unsuccessful lawsuits against various entities for various causes of action. In this case. Mr. Sanders was offended by the action taken by Aldi when the manager stopped to question him on January 24, 20 I 8. ln our discretion, we decline to impose sanctions on a pro se litigant who misinterpreted the application of GBL §218 and the protection it affords merchants. This is the Decision of the Court. Submit Order and J ment on notice without costs. Justice of the Supreme Court Dated: February 8. 2019 4 6 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.