Bruce v Morton Williams Supermarkets, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 32423(U)

July 15, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 153933/2022

Judge: Judy H. Kim

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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 04:42 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 

INDEX NO. 153933/2022 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

NEW YORK COUNTY 

PRESENT: HON. JUDY H. KIM 

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

ARNOLD BRUCE, 

Plaintiff, 

- V -

MORTON WILLIAMS SUPERMARKETS, INC., JOHN DOE, 

Defendants. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

PART 

INDEX NO. 153933/2022 

MOTION DATE 06/06/2023 

MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION 

04 

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 

were read on this motion to DISMISS 

Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by defendant Morton Williams Supermarkets, 

Inc. ("Morton Williams") pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and (a)(7), to dismiss this action is granted 

to the limited extent that plaintiffs demand for punitive damages is dismissed as against Morton 

Williams, and otherwise denied. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Morton Williams operated a supermarket at 311 East 23rd Street, 

New York, New York (the "Premises") on October 9, 2021 and that that plaintiff was lawfully at 

the supermarket on that date when the John Doe defendant, a security officer employed by Morton 

Williams, "accosted plaintiff, physically assaulted the [p ]laintiff, illegally and forcibly handcuffed 

him, confined and locked plaintiff in a holding cell for several hours until his release" without 

cause (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 [Complaint at ,i,i10, 14-15]). Plaintiff asserts claims for, inter alia, 

assault, negligence, false arrest, and false imprisonment (Id. at ,i,i10, 19-20). 

Defendant now moves to dismiss this action, submitting the lease for the Premises between 

non-parties East Midtown Plaza Housing Company, Inc., and Brown & White Markets, Inc. d/b/a 

153933/2022 BRUCE, ARNOLD vs. MORTON WILLIAMS SUPERMARKETS, INC. ET AL 

Motion No. 001 

1 of 5 

Page 1 of 5 

[* 1]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 04:42 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 

INDEX NO. 153933/2022 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 

Morton Williams Supermarket ("Brown & White") dated July 1, 1997 along with subsequent 

extensions and modifications (collectively, the "Lease") (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 7-12), and an 

affidavit of Steven Sloan, Vice President of Brown & White, stating that Morton Williams has 

never been involved with the day-to day operations of the supermarket at that location, or any 

supermarket (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 [Sloan Aff. at ,J,J5, 7, 11, 18]). 

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that "[t]he fact that defense counsel is asking the 

Court to accept an affidavit from a vice president from Brown & White to describe particular 

attributes and operation of defendant Morton Williams is an affirmative representation to the Court 

that both companies are at the very least, inter-related, if not more" and that discovery is therefore 

necessary to determine whether Brown & White and Morton Williams are "so inter-related that 

they should be deemed the same company and/or united in interest in this instance" (NYSCEF 

Doc. No. 18 [Rooney Affirm. in Opp. at ,i,i12, 14). 

DISCUSSION 

Pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l), "[d]ismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence 

submitted utterly refutes plaintiffs factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense to the 

asserted claims as a matter of law" (Amsterdam Hosp. Group, LLC v Marshall-Alan Assoc, Inc., 

120 AD3d 431,433 [1st Dept 2014] [internal citations and quotations omitted]). "To be considered 

documentary" such evidence "must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity" (Toribio v 

575 Broadway LLC, 61 Misc 3d 1224(A) [Sup Ct, NY County 2018] [internal citations and 

quotations omitted]). Significantly, "[j]udicial records, mortgages, deeds and contracts constitute 

documentary evidence, but affidavits and deposition testimony are not considered documentary 

evidence" (Id. [internal citations omitted]). 

153933/2022 BRUCE, ARNOLD vs. MORTON WILLIAMS SUPERMARKETS, INC. ET AL 

Motion No. 001 

2 of 5 

Page 2 of 5 

[* 2]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 04:42 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 

INDEX NO. 153933/2022 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 

In this case, while the Lease is documentary evidence it establishes only that defendant was 

not the lessee of premises during the relevant period but does not refute plaintiff's allegation that 

defendant was operating the grocery store in question. To the extent Sloan asserts that Morton 

Williams has never operated grocery stores, his affidavit is "not documentary evidence within the 

intendment of a CPLR 3211(a)(l) motion to dismiss" and cannot be credited (Fontanetta v Doe, 

73 AD3d 78, 86 [2d Dept 201 O] [internal quotations omitted]). Since, without Sloan's affidavit it 

"cannot be concluded that [ d]efendants are not properly named as parties in the instant complaint," 

the motion to dismiss the complaint must be denied1 (See Peczek v 2 World Trade Ctr. LLC, 2014 

NY Slip Op 31202[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2014] citing Flowers v 73rd Townhouse LLC, 99 

AD3d431 [lstDept2012]). 

That branch of Morton Williams' motion which seeks to strike plaintiff's demand for 

punitive damages against it is granted, however. An employer will be held vicariously liable for 

the intentional wrongdoing of its employees, such that punitive damages are warranted, 

only where management has authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the 

conduct giving rise to such damages, or deliberately retained the unfit servant, or 

the wrong was in pursuance of a recognized business system of the entity. Stated 

otherwise, employer liability for punitive damages can result only when a superior 

officer [ of the employer] in the course of employment orders, participates in, or 

ratifies outrageous conduct with the term "superior officer" being restricted to 

persons holding a high level of general managerial authority in relation to the nature 

and operation of the employer's business 

( 1 Mott St., Inc. v Con Edison, 33 AD3d 531, 532 [1st Dept 2006] [internal citations and quotations 

omitted]). It is undisputed that plaintiffs complaint does not include facts satisfying these 

requirements. Indeed, plaintiff concedes that he does not, at this juncture, have information 

supporting such allegations. Accordingly, plaintiff's demand for punitive damages as against 

1 After discovery, these submissions would, if undisputed, establish Morton Williams' entitlement to summary 

judgment (See Charest v K Mart ofN.Y. Holdings, Inc .. 71 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2010]). 

153933/2022 BRUCE, ARNOLD vs. MORTON WILLIAMS SUPERMARKETS, INC. ET AL 

Motion No. 001 

3 of 5 

Page 3 of 5 

[* 3]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 04:42 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 

INDEX NO. 153933/2022 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 

Morton Williams is stricken, without prejudice to plaintiff moving for leave to amend his 

complaint to include an ad damnum demand for punitive damages against Morton Williams, if 

evidence to support such a demand is produced during discovery. 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss is granted to the limited extent that 

plaintiffs demand for punitive damages as against Morton Williams is stricken, and is otherwise 

denied; and it is further 

ORDERED that plaintiff shall, within ten days from the date of this decision and order, 

serve a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry upon defendant and the Clerk of the 

Court (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre 

Street, Room 119); and it is further 

ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General 

Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on 

Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases ( accessible at the "EFiling" page on the court's website at www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further 

153933/2022 BRUCE, ARNOLD vs. MORTON WILLIAMS SUPERMARKETS, INC. ET AL 

Motion No. 001 

4 of 5 

Page 4 of 5 

[* 4]
!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2024 04:42 PM! 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 

INDEX NO. 153933/2022 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2024 

ORDERED that the parties are to appear for a preliminary conference on September 13, 

2024 in Part 4 (80 Centre Street, room 308) at 10:00 am. 

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 

7/15/2024 

DATE 

CHECK ONE: 

HON. JUDY H. KIM, J.S.C. 

APPLICATION: 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 

~ CASE DISPOSED 

GRANTED □ DENIED 

SETTLE ORDER 

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 

GRANTED IN PART 

SUBMIT ORDER 

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 

153933/2022 BRUCE, ARNOLD vs. MORTON WILLIAMS SUPERMARKETS, INC. ET AL 

Motion No. 001 

5 of 5 

□ OTHER 

□ REFERENCE 

Page 5 of 5 

[* 5]