Opinion
No. 69554/2019
02-05-2021
SANJAY BROOKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIELD HALL FOUNDATION and YRNC OPERATING, LLC d/b/a YORKTOWN REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: HON. LINDA S. JAMIESON
DECISION AND ORDER
LINDA S. JAMIESON, Justice of the Supreme Court
The following papers numbered 1 to 6 were read on these motions:
Plaintiff submitted unauthorized sur-reply papers to the Court. These papers have been disregarded.
Paper
Number
Notice of Motion, Affidavits, Affirmation and Exhibits
1
Memorandum of Law
2
Notice of Cross-Motion, Affidavit, Affirmation and Exhibits
3
Memorandum of Law
4
Affirmation and Exhibits in Opposition and in Reply
5
Memorandum of Law in Opposition and in Reply
5
There are two motions before the Court in this purported class action lawsuit involving a certified nursing assistant at an adult day care facility in Yorktown. The first motion, filed by defendant YRNC Operating LLC, d/b/a Yorktown Rehabilitation and Nursing Center ("YRNC"), seeks to dismiss YRNC from the action because it did not employ plaintiff. The second motion, filed by plaintiff, seeks summary judgment finding that YRNC did employ plaintiff.
The facts are as follows. Plaintiff was employed from 2001 to April 2018 by co-defendant Field Hall Foundation at an adult day care facility in Yorktown. At some point in 2018, YRNC, or an affiliate, purchased the company that operated that facility, as well as a nursing home. Plaintiff continued to work for the same facility for another six months, when she was terminated (or chose to leave). The name on the sole paystub she submits to the Court is "Yorktown Social Adult Daycare." It turns out that Yorktown Social Adult Daycare is a d/b/a for a company called "YSAD, LLC" ("YSAD"). Plaintiff did not sue YSAD, her actual employer.
YRNC contends that it should be dismissed from the action because it does not employ plaintiff. It submits to the Court affidavits from its payroll company and its director of human resources, both of whom say that their records reflect that there is no one named Sanjay Brooks employed by YRNC, and that there never has been. Instead, YRNC contends that YSAD is plaintiff's employer and the proper party defendant.
Plaintiff argues that the two companies are essentially the same, and that she only needs to sue YRNC. As proof of this assertion, she submits to the Court a disciplinary record from September 2018, just before she left, on Yorktown Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's letterhead, this being the d/b/a for YRNC. She also asserts, among other things, that since the two companies have the same ownership and the same addresses, they must be one and the same.
The problem with plaintiff's argument is that the law does not make such assumptions. Without more, there is no basis for the Court to conclude that these two separate legal entities are the same or alter egos such that the Court should disregard the corporate formalities and keep YRNC in the action, when it has demonstrated that it never employed plaintiff. See Krakower v. Battles Universal, Inc., 152 A.D.2d 656, 657, 543 N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (2d Dept. 1989); Blount v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 293, 294, 853 N.Y.S.2d 53, 54 (1st Dept. 2008).
Accordingly, the Court dismisses YRNC from the action without prejudice. Should discovery reveal that YRNC is a proper party, plaintiff may seek to add it back in to the action. The Court denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.