NY Pharmacist May Proceed in Tort Against Entity Affiliated With His Employer

Finding that a NY corporation had failed to establish either that it and Plaintiff’s employer–a related entity–were part of a single integrated entity or that one of the corporations controlled the day-to-day operations of the other, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision to deny a summary judgment motion filed by non-employing entity [Fazzolari v. Sun Enterprises, LLC, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7545 (2d Dept. Dec. 9, 2020)]. Plaintiff, a pharmacist, alleged that he had sustained injuries in a fall at a CVS drugstore. The appellate court agreed that the employing entity was immune from tort liability, but found the other defendant had failed to show the necessary ties to the employing entity to enjoy immunity as well.

Background

Plaintiff worked as a pharmacist for CVS Rx Services, Inc. (“CVS Rx”). He alleged that he sustained injuries when he fell while descending an interior staircase in the CVS store. The lease for the premises was held in the name of a separate entity, CVS Albany, LLC (“CVS Albany”). Plaintiff filed a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries against both CVS Rx and CVS Albany. Prior to the completion of discovery, both defendants moved for summary judgment on exclusive remedy grounds. The two entities argued that CVS Rx was Plaintiff’s employer, and accordingly immune from suit, and that CVS Albany was an alter ego of CVS Rx, and as such, it too was entitled to summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CVS Rx, but not CVS Albany, and the latter defendant appealed.

Appellate Court Decision

The appellate court acknowledged that the protection from lawsuits afforded to employers under N.Y. Workers’ Comp. § 11 also extended to entities that were alter egos of the entity employing the plaintiff. In most instances, said the court, a defendant could establish itself as the alter ego of a plaintiff’s employer by demonstrating that one of the entities controlled the other or that the two operated as a single integrated entity. The court stressed that the mere showing that the two entitles were related was, however, insufficient. The court found CVS Albany had failed to make a prima facie showing that it and CVS Rx operated as a single integrated entity. It had also failed to show that either entity controlled the day-to-day operations of the other. The trial court’s decision to deny CVS Albany’s motion for summary judgment was, therefore, appropriate.