Ellis v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 27, 2020
Supreme Court, New York County
ROXANNE ELLIS, Plaintiff,
against
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., 383 MADISON, LLC, JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., ABM FACILITY SERVICES COMPANY and ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES - NORTHEAST, INC., Defendants.
Index No. 156426/2017
Reingold & Tucker, Brooklyn, NY (Jordan W. Tucker of counsel), for plaintiff.
Stagg Wabnick Law Group LLP, Garden City, NY (Thomas E. Stagg and Michael C. Dombrowski of counsel), for defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and 383 Madison, LLC.
Gallo Vitucci Klar, LLP, New York, NY (Jill L. Zibkow of counsel), for the ABM defendants.
Sobel Pevzner, LLC, Huntington, NY (Aaron C. Gross of counsel), for defendant Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc.
Gerald Lebovits, J.
This personal-injury action was previously scheduled for trial beginning on April 6, [*2]2020. The trial has since been indefinitely postponed in light of COVID-19-related disruptions to normal court operations. On the present motion and cross-motion, plaintiff and various defendants skirmish about whether two newly added defendants should be treated as being properly in the case given the then-impending trial; and, if so, how to handle the need to provide discovery sought by, and demanded of, those two new defendants.
Plaintiff, Roxanne Ellis, was formerly a delivery driver for nonparty Sysco. She was injured while attempting to make a delivery of dry goods to the offices of defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JP Morgan), which were located at 383 Madison Avenue in Manhattan. Ellis's original complaint asserted damages claims against JP Morgan and against the building owner, 383 Madison, LLC.
In February 2019, Ellis sought and obtained a trial preference from this court on the ground that her injuries had rendered her unable to work and indigent. In September 2019 this court denied the motion for summary judgment of defendants JP Morgan and 383 Madison and set the matter down for trial. The parties then agreed to a brief adjournment of the trial to an effort to resolve the case in mediation. That effort proved unsuccessful.
In December 2019, JP Morgan and 383 Madison stipulated to permit Ellis to amend her complaint to assert claims against additional defendants. Ellis promptly filed an amended complaint. This amended complaint added, in essence, two new defendants: Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., which served as the facilities manager for the entire building at 383 Madison, and ABM Industries, Inc., which subcontracted with Jones Lang Lasalle to provide janitorial services at the 383 Madison loading dock where Ellis was injured.[FN1] Each set of defendants (JP Morgan and 383 Madison, Jones Lang Lasalle, and ABM) separately answered the amended complaint and asserted cross-claims against one another. Trial in the action was then scheduled to begin on April 6, 2020.[FN2]
ABM moves to dismiss the claims asserted against it in the amended complaint. In the alternative, ABM asks this court to strike plaintiff's note of issue and to stay trial in the case to permit ABM to obtain discovery from plaintiff and ABM's co-defendants. JP Morgan and 383 Madison oppose ABM's motion to dismiss. They also cross-move to strike the note of issue and to compel ABM to respond to their discovery requests. Jones Lang Lasalle opposes ABM's motion to dismiss and has not taken a position on JP Morgan's cross-motion to vacate the note of issue. Plaintiff opposes both dismissal and vacatur of the note of issue.
ABM's motion to dismiss is denied. This court does not agree with ABM's assertion that plaintiff's claims against it are "barred by gross laches" Those claims, which sound in law rather [*3]than in equity, were brought within the applicable limitations period.[FN3] (See Cadlerock, L.L.C. v Renner, 72 AD3d 454, 454 [1st Dept 2009].) Nor does this court agree that the deposition testimony quoted by ABM in its motion papers necessarily establishes at the pleading stage that plaintiff has no cause of action against ABM
ABM's alternative request to strike plaintiff's note of issue and remove the case from the trial calendar, and the cross-motion of JP Morgan and 383 Madison for that relief, also are denied. This court agrees that the parties are entitled to obtain additional discovery from one another in light of plaintiff's new claims against ABM and Jones Lang Lasalle, and the defendants' new cross-claims against one another. The need for further discovery, however, does not warrant striking the note of issue here. As a result of COVID-19, the scheduled trial in this case has been postponed for an as-yet-indefinite—but surely substantial—period of time. And plaintiff has alleged that the grounds on which this court granted her a trial preference remain. In these unusual circumstances, this court sees no basis to deprive plaintiff of her place in the trial queue for whenever trials resume in Supreme Court, New York County.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the branch of ABM's motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff's claims against it is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the branch of ABM's motion seeking to vacate plaintiff's note of issue and stay the trial of this action is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the branch of JP Morgan and 383 Madison's cross-motion seeking to vacate plaintiff's note of issue is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the branch of ABM's motion seeking to compel plaintiff and co-defendants to provide appropriate discovery is granted only to the extent that all parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding necessary further discovery in this case; shall, to the extent possible, agree on an appropriate schedule for providing that discovery (and for filing of additional dispositive motions, if any); and shall within 21 days of entry of this order notify this court of the agreed-upon schedule or of disputes among the parties that require a conference with the court, by email to mhshawha@nycourts.gov; and it is further
ORDERED that the branch of JP Morgan and 383 Madison's cross-motion seeking to compel discovery from ABM and Jones Lang Lasalle is granted only to the same extent as ABM's motion to compel discovery.
Date: 5/27/20 Footnotes
Footnote 1:The amended complaint added several related ABM defendants; for concision, this decision refers to them collectively as ABM.
Footnote 2:That trial date was later rendered inoperative by COVID-19. No new trial date has been set.
Footnote 3:This court notes also that ABM did not assert a defense of laches in its answer, which is a further basis to deny the motion to dismiss. (See Clair v City of NY, 144 AD3d 98, 108-109 [1st Dept 2016].)
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.
