BABY OIL AND WATER ON THE DECK WHEN IT’S RAINING MEN! Motions for Summary Judgment Dismissed, Plaintiff Allowed to Pierce the Corporate Veil
Joseph v. Circle Line - Sightseeing Yachts, Inc., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3269, 2019 WL 2549585 (N.Y. Sup.)
By: Shelia Tolar
In this personal injury action,defendant Circle Line -Sightseeing Yachts, Inc. (Circle Line) moved for summaryjudgment. Defendant Sharay Hayes, owner of Get Punished L.L.C. (G.P.) andtogether with G.P. (the Hayes Defendants), cross-moved for summary judgmentdismissing plaintiff Joseph’s claim and Circle Line’s cross-claims. Joseph alsosought to pierce the corporate veil and hold Hayes responsible for her injury.Hayes moved that the claims against him be severed and dismissed. The SupremeCourt of New York in New York County denied both Circle Line’s motion and theHayes Defendant’s cross-motion.
Plaintiff Joseph slipped and fell ondefendant Circle Line’s vessel on July 12, 2013, while attending an event heldby defendant G.P. Joseph and her friends were attending an all-male dancereview aboard Circle Line’s vessel. An affidavit from a forensic meteorologistsupports Joseph’s claim that it rained that night. When Joseph attempted to godownstairs, she slipped and fell to the bottom of the stairs because the stairswere slippery from baby oil used by the dancers and rainwater.
Hayes signed a Charter Party Agreementas “charterer” on behalf of Latinclubs.com. Circle Line’s Director of EventPlanning signed the agreement on behalf of Circle Line and provided anaffidavit that Hayes did not indicate that he signed the agreement on behalf ofanother party or person. The Charter Party Agreement indemnified Circle Lineand provided that the charterer was responsible “for cleaning and maintainingall areas where passengers consume food and/or beverage”[1]and “that it is the Charterer's responsibility to maintain the decks of thevessel in a clean and dry condition.”[2]
Hayes, who was a dancer on the night ofthe accident as well as the owner of G.P., testified that he used the samestairs as the plaintiff many times on the night of the accident. He describedthe stairs as normal and dry. Hayes also stated, despite plaintiff’s claims tothe contrary, that no dancers or audience members applied oil to the dancers’bodies. The vessel captain and a deckhand also testified that they did not seeany dancers use oil and disputed the plaintiff’s claims about the condition ofthe vessel.
Circle Line argued that Joseph couldnot establish what caused her accident and that there was no evidence that theyhad notice of the vessel’s condition or that Circle Line acted unreasonably.The Hayes Defendants argued that the plaintiff could not prove that theiractions were a proximate cause of her accident and that they did not havenotice of the condition of the vessel. Regarding Circle Line’s cross-claim, theHayes Defendants argued that they did not have to indemnify Circle Line becauseHayes signed the Charter Party Agreement as an agent of another party.
Summary judgment should not be grantedwhen there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue.[3]The Supreme Court of New York determined that there were several materialissues of fact in dispute and rejected Circle Line’s arguments of lack ofevidence and the plaintiff’s inability to establish the cause of her accident.Additionally, the court disagreed with Circle Line’s position that plaintifflacked evidentiary support for her claim that Circle Line breached its duty toher. Further, the court found that Joseph met her burden of proof for piercingthe corporate veil and demonstrated that: [1] Hayes exercised completedomination over the corporation with respect to the matter at issue, and [2]that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiffwhich led to plaintiff's injury.[4]
[1] Joseph v. Circle Line - Sightseeing Yachts, Inc., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3269, at *2.
[2]Id.
[3]Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 385 N.E.2d 1068, [1977].
[4]Matter of Morris v. New York State Dent, of Taxation & Fin., 623N.E.2d 1157, [1993].
