Cammayo v. 1AND8, Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 32090(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, Richmond County
DecidedJune 12, 2025
DocketIndex No. 150173/2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 32090(U) (Cammayo v. 1AND8, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, Richmond County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cammayo v. 1AND8, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 32090(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Cammayo v 1AND8, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 32090(U) June 12, 2025 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: Index No. 150173/2024 Judge: Lizette Colon 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: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2025 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 150173/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025 At IAS Part 21M of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Richmond, at the Courthouse, located in Staten Island, City and State of New York on the 12th day of June 2025.

PRESENT: HON. LIZETTE COLON, JSC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------X Katherine Cammayo Motion Seq#6&7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER -against- INDEX NO. 150173/2024

1AND8, Inc. d/b/a Museum of Ice Cream Defendant(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X Papers Numbered (NYSCEF) Notice of Motion/OSC (MS#6) And Affirmations/Affidavits Annexed___________________________________________________________95-106 Answering Affirmations/Affidavits in Opposition _________________________________________________118-129 Reply Affirmations/Affidavits _________________________________________________________________133 Notice of Motion/OSC (MS#7) And Affirmations/Affidavits Annexed____________________________________________________________ 111-117 Answering Affirmations/Affidavits in Opposition ___________________________________________________130-131 Proposed Additional Respondent Affirmation ______________________________________________________132

L, Colon:

Defendant made a motion for summary judgment for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212,

granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff, Katherine

Cammayo’s, claims, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff made a motion (MS#7) for an order pursuant to Article 9 of the CPLR defining

the class that has been certified; approving the proposed notices; extending Plaintiff’s deadline to

file her motion for summary judgment; and granting such other, further, or different relief as the

Court deems just and proper.

Virtual oral arguments were held on June 3, 2025, and for the following reasons,

Defendant’s motion (MS#6) is hereby denied, and Plaintiff’s motion (MS#7) is hereby granted.

Page 1 of 8

1 of 8 [* 1] FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2025 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 150173/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

OVERVIEW

Plaintiff commenced the instant action against the Defendant for an alleged violation of the

New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 25.07 (4). Plaintiff alleges that the service fee is masked

under the ambiguous category of “Taxes & Fees” on Defendant’s website. Plaintiff, Katherine

Cammayo, is an individual consumer who purchased three admission tickets to the Museum of Ice

Cream NYC through Defendant’s website. Plaintiff seeks damages in this action individually and

on behalf of all other ticket purchasers for Defendant’s place of entertainment, as well as

reasonable attorneys’ costs and fees, and injunctive relief under New York Arts and Cultural

Affairs Law § 25.33.

Defendant made a motion (MS#6), at the close of discovery, seeking summary judgment

arguing that “the ACAL does not impose strict liability for technical violations of its notice

provision and plaintiff must meet her burden to establish her entitlement to recovery; the

undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff did not incur ‘actual damages’ by ‘reason of’ the alleged

violation of the A.C.A.L.; and that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the voluntary payment doctrine as

a matter of law.” See Memo. of Law in Supp., p. 8, 9, 16, NYSCEF #106. Plaintiff argues in

opposition that “Plaintiff suffered an injury and actual damages under A.C.A.L. § 25.07(4); and

the voluntary payment doctrine is inapplicable.” See Memo. of Law in Opp., p. 10, NYSCEF #118.

Defendant in reply argues that “A.C.A.L. §25.33 plainly requires that Plaintiff prove causation and

damages; none of Plaintiff’s cited authorities excuse her from proving the elements of causation

and actual damages under the A.C.A.L.; Plaintiff has not met her burden to raise a triable issue of

fact as to causation or actual damages; and that the voluntary payment doctrine bars Plaintiff’s

claim; and dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim will not subvert the legislative intent of the A.C.A.L..”

See Memo. of Law in Reply, p. 2, 3 5, 7, NYSCEF #133.

Page 2 of 8

2 of 8 [* 2] FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2025 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 150173/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

Plaintiff also made a motion (MS#7) for clarification on the definition of the certified class

and an extension of time to file her summary judgment motion. The Plaintiff argues that she should

be granted an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion, so she can provide class notice,

and after notice is provided, the decision “would be binding on the Class.” See Memo. of Law in

Supp., p. 3, NYSCEF #112. Plaintiff also argues that an extension of time to file her summary

judgment motion will prevent her from “running afoul of the rule against one way intervention.”

Id.

Defendant argues in opposition “that the Nationwide Class, if certified, must be limited to

those individuals in the United States; and that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause as defined

by the Court of Appeals and her belated request for an extension of time to file a summary

judgment motion should be denied.” See Memo. of Law in Opp., p. 2-3, NYSCEF #131. Plaintiff

argues in reply that “[Defendant’s] challenge to the nationwide class definition is untimely and

improper; and the Court should grant Plaintiff’s requested extension to file her motion for

summary judgment.” See Memo. of Law in Reply, p. 1, 3, NYSCEF #132.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted,

the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of

law in directing judgment in favor of any party. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212 (b). The motion shall be

denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact. Id. The movant

has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law,

tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.

Page 3 of 8

3 of 8 [* 3] FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2025 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 150173/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party need only rebut the prima facie showing

made by the moving party so as to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. See Gluck

v. Mapfre Ins. Co. of New York, 221 A.D.3d 662, 663, 198 N.Y.S.3d 758, 760 (2023). Summary

judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence

of a triable issue of fact. See Goldin Real Est., LLC v. Shukla, 227 A.D.3d 674, 676, 212 N.Y.S.3d

117, 119 (2024).

The New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law provides:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Brill v. City of New York
814 N.E.2d 431 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
Michael Jiannaras v. Mike Alfant
52 N.E.3d 1166 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
People v. Applied Card Systems, Inc.
894 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
Gluck v. Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y.
221 A.D.3d 662 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 32090(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cammayo-v-1and8-inc-nysupctrichmond-2025.