Doren v Allstar Sec. & Consulting, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31580(U) May 2, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152450/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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. INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice ----------------X INDEX NO. 152450/2021 CHRISTOPHER DOREN, MOTION DATE 05/15/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 - V -
ALLSTAR SECURITY & CONSULTING, INC.,53-55 WEST 21ST OWNER, LLC,NEW LOUNGE 4324 LLC,D/B/A BOUNCE SPORTING CLUB, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2 DECISION + ORDER ON (SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS TO REPRESENT UNKNOWN SECURITY GUARDS WORKING AT THE MOTION PREMISES ON DATE OF INCIDENT),
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ·-------X
NEW LOUNGE 4324 LLC, D/B/A BOUNCE SPORTING CLUB Third-Party Index No. 595940/2022 Plaintiff,
-against-
JACOB O'BRIEN
Defendant. - - - - - ------------------------·-------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,123,124,125,126,127,134, 135,136,137,138,139,140,141, 142, 143,145,153, 155,156,157 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument, which took place on February 25,
2025, where Andrew Dellaripa, Esq. appeared for Plaintiff Christopher Doren ("Plaintiff'), Alex
Rabhan, Esq. appeared for Defendant New Lounge 4324 LLC d/b/a Bounce Sporting Club
("Bounce"), and Lisa R. Kramer, Esq. appeared for Defendants Allstar Security & Consulting, Inc.
("Allstar") and 53-55 West 21st Owner LLC ("Owner"), Bounce's motion for summary judgment
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
dismissing Plaintiff's claims and all crossclaims asserted against it, and seeking summary
judgment on its crossclaims asserted against Allstar is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
On October 19, 2019, Plaintiff was visiting the bar known as Bounce at 55 West 21 st Street,
New York, New York (the "Premises"). Security at the Premises is outsourced to Allstar
(NYSCEF Doc. 87 at 15). Prior to visiting Bounce, Plaintiff consumed four or five beers, and
continued drinking upon arrival to Bounce (NYSCEF Doc. 78 at 13; 16). Plaintiff testified within
five to ten minutes of entering, he got into a verbal altercation and a bouncer escorted Plaintiff out
(Id at 17-19; 95). Plaintiff tried to reenter Bounce but was not allowed (Id. at 21 ). Plaintiff's friend,
Matt, was also ejected because he was too intoxicated. Plaintiff himself admitted he "was a little
drunk." (Id. at 22-23).
While outside, Matt got involved in an altercation with a stranger, later identified as third-
party defendant Jacob O'Brien ("Jacob"). Plaintiff, Matt, and Jacob moved down the block, away
from Bounce, and fought (NYSCEF Doc. 78. at 130). The fight happened off Premises (NYSCEF
Doc. 87 at 113). Plaintiff sues Defendants for injuries sustained due to the Defendants' alleged
negligence and against Bounce for an alleged violation of New York Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law§ 65 and New York General Obligation Law§ 11-101. Bounce moves for summary judgment
dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and Allstar's crossclaims.
II. Discussion
A. Standard
"Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has
tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v
Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499,503 [2012]). The moving party's "burden is a heavy one and
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 002
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non- -
moving party." (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hasps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]).
Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce
evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact
which require a trial (See e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).
B. Plaintiff's Claims against Bounce
i. Negligent Hiring/Supervision/Retention
Bounce's motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint against it is
granted. A cause of action for negligent supervision, hiring or retention requires "that the employer
knew, or should have known, of the employee's propensity for the sort of conduct which caused
the injury." (Norris v Innovative Health Systems, Inc., 184 AD3d 471,472 [1st Dept 2020] quoting
Sheila C. v Pavich, 11 AD3d 120, 129-130 [1st Dept 2004]). Moreover, it must be shown that "the
tortfeasor and the defendant were in an employee employer relationship" (Trump v Trump, 79
Misc.3d 866, 886 [Sup. Ct., NY Cty. 2023] quoting Ehrens v Lutheran Church, 385 F3d 232,235
[2d Cir. 2004]). The individuals overseeing security at Bounce when Plaintiff was injured were
independent contractors hired, trained, retained, and supervised by Allstar, not Bounce. Thus, there
is no employee-employer relationship through which Bounce may be held liable for negligent
supervision, hiring, and retention of an Allstar security guard. Moreover, there is no evidence that
Bounce knew or should have known of the alleged "dangerous propensity" - namely Allstar' s
employees' decision not to intervene in an off-premises fight. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
ii. General Negligence
Plaintiffs general negligence claim against Bounce is dismissed. The record is devoid of
evidence showing Bounce exercised sufficient control over Allstar employees to render them liable
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
for the acts ofits independent contractor (Vargas v Beer Garden, Inc., 15 AD3d 277,278 [1st Dept
2005]). Indeed, by Plaintiffs own admission, he consumed four or five beers prior to entering
Bounce and was escorted out of Bounce within five to ten minutes because he was engaged in a
verbal altercation. After being expelled from Bounce, he was never allowed back in, and he was
ultimately hurt in a fight with a random third-party, who was not a patron of Bounce, on the
sidewalk some distance from Bounce's property (see also Mitchell v Just Lorraine's Place, LLC,
214 AD3d 538, 538 [1st Dept 2023]; Murphy v Chaos, 26 AD3d 231, 231 [1st Dept 2006]).
Therefore, the general negligence claim against Bounce is dismissed (see also Fambro v City of
New York, 205 AD3d 608,609 [1st Dept 2022]; Mclaughlan v BR Guest, Inc., 149 AD3d 519 [1st
Dept 2017]). To the extent Plaintiffs expert affidavit avers otherwise, Plaintiffs expert's opinion
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Doren v Allstar Sec. & Consulting, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31580(U) May 2, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152450/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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. INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice ----------------X INDEX NO. 152450/2021 CHRISTOPHER DOREN, MOTION DATE 05/15/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 - V -
ALLSTAR SECURITY & CONSULTING, INC.,53-55 WEST 21ST OWNER, LLC,NEW LOUNGE 4324 LLC,D/B/A BOUNCE SPORTING CLUB, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2 DECISION + ORDER ON (SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS TO REPRESENT UNKNOWN SECURITY GUARDS WORKING AT THE MOTION PREMISES ON DATE OF INCIDENT),
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ·-------X
NEW LOUNGE 4324 LLC, D/B/A BOUNCE SPORTING CLUB Third-Party Index No. 595940/2022 Plaintiff,
-against-
JACOB O'BRIEN
Defendant. - - - - - ------------------------·-------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,123,124,125,126,127,134, 135,136,137,138,139,140,141, 142, 143,145,153, 155,156,157 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument, which took place on February 25,
2025, where Andrew Dellaripa, Esq. appeared for Plaintiff Christopher Doren ("Plaintiff'), Alex
Rabhan, Esq. appeared for Defendant New Lounge 4324 LLC d/b/a Bounce Sporting Club
("Bounce"), and Lisa R. Kramer, Esq. appeared for Defendants Allstar Security & Consulting, Inc.
("Allstar") and 53-55 West 21st Owner LLC ("Owner"), Bounce's motion for summary judgment
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
dismissing Plaintiff's claims and all crossclaims asserted against it, and seeking summary
judgment on its crossclaims asserted against Allstar is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
On October 19, 2019, Plaintiff was visiting the bar known as Bounce at 55 West 21 st Street,
New York, New York (the "Premises"). Security at the Premises is outsourced to Allstar
(NYSCEF Doc. 87 at 15). Prior to visiting Bounce, Plaintiff consumed four or five beers, and
continued drinking upon arrival to Bounce (NYSCEF Doc. 78 at 13; 16). Plaintiff testified within
five to ten minutes of entering, he got into a verbal altercation and a bouncer escorted Plaintiff out
(Id at 17-19; 95). Plaintiff tried to reenter Bounce but was not allowed (Id. at 21 ). Plaintiff's friend,
Matt, was also ejected because he was too intoxicated. Plaintiff himself admitted he "was a little
drunk." (Id. at 22-23).
While outside, Matt got involved in an altercation with a stranger, later identified as third-
party defendant Jacob O'Brien ("Jacob"). Plaintiff, Matt, and Jacob moved down the block, away
from Bounce, and fought (NYSCEF Doc. 78. at 130). The fight happened off Premises (NYSCEF
Doc. 87 at 113). Plaintiff sues Defendants for injuries sustained due to the Defendants' alleged
negligence and against Bounce for an alleged violation of New York Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law§ 65 and New York General Obligation Law§ 11-101. Bounce moves for summary judgment
dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and Allstar's crossclaims.
II. Discussion
A. Standard
"Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has
tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v
Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499,503 [2012]). The moving party's "burden is a heavy one and
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 002
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non- -
moving party." (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hasps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]).
Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce
evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact
which require a trial (See e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).
B. Plaintiff's Claims against Bounce
i. Negligent Hiring/Supervision/Retention
Bounce's motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint against it is
granted. A cause of action for negligent supervision, hiring or retention requires "that the employer
knew, or should have known, of the employee's propensity for the sort of conduct which caused
the injury." (Norris v Innovative Health Systems, Inc., 184 AD3d 471,472 [1st Dept 2020] quoting
Sheila C. v Pavich, 11 AD3d 120, 129-130 [1st Dept 2004]). Moreover, it must be shown that "the
tortfeasor and the defendant were in an employee employer relationship" (Trump v Trump, 79
Misc.3d 866, 886 [Sup. Ct., NY Cty. 2023] quoting Ehrens v Lutheran Church, 385 F3d 232,235
[2d Cir. 2004]). The individuals overseeing security at Bounce when Plaintiff was injured were
independent contractors hired, trained, retained, and supervised by Allstar, not Bounce. Thus, there
is no employee-employer relationship through which Bounce may be held liable for negligent
supervision, hiring, and retention of an Allstar security guard. Moreover, there is no evidence that
Bounce knew or should have known of the alleged "dangerous propensity" - namely Allstar' s
employees' decision not to intervene in an off-premises fight. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
ii. General Negligence
Plaintiffs general negligence claim against Bounce is dismissed. The record is devoid of
evidence showing Bounce exercised sufficient control over Allstar employees to render them liable
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
for the acts ofits independent contractor (Vargas v Beer Garden, Inc., 15 AD3d 277,278 [1st Dept
2005]). Indeed, by Plaintiffs own admission, he consumed four or five beers prior to entering
Bounce and was escorted out of Bounce within five to ten minutes because he was engaged in a
verbal altercation. After being expelled from Bounce, he was never allowed back in, and he was
ultimately hurt in a fight with a random third-party, who was not a patron of Bounce, on the
sidewalk some distance from Bounce's property (see also Mitchell v Just Lorraine's Place, LLC,
214 AD3d 538, 538 [1st Dept 2023]; Murphy v Chaos, 26 AD3d 231, 231 [1st Dept 2006]).
Therefore, the general negligence claim against Bounce is dismissed (see also Fambro v City of
New York, 205 AD3d 608,609 [1st Dept 2022]; Mclaughlan v BR Guest, Inc., 149 AD3d 519 [1st
Dept 2017]). To the extent Plaintiffs expert affidavit avers otherwise, Plaintiffs expert's opinion
is contrary to the plethora of First Department precedent cited, is speculative, conclusory, and not
based on facts in evidence.
iii. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 and General Obligation Law § 11-101
Plaintiff failed to oppose dismissal of his Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 and
General Obligation Law § 11-101 claims against Bounce. Therefore, they are dismissed as
abandoned (see, e.g. Saidin v Negron, 136 AD3d 458,459 [1st Dept 2016]).
C. Crossclaims
To the extent Bounce seeks summary judgment on its crossclaims against Allstar and
Owner, that motion is denied. Plaintiffs notice of motion sought only dismissal of Plaintiffs
Complaint, and any crossclaims asserted against Bounce (NYSCEF Doc. 69), it did not request
summary judgment on its crossclaims against Allstar and Owner. Although Bounce argued in its
motion papers for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claims, this relief was not
requested in the notice of motion, which warrants denial (Onofre v 243 Riverside Drive Corp., 232
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 002
4 of 5 [* 4] INDEX NO. 152450/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 165 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2024]; Abizadeh v Abizadeh, 159 AD3d 856 [2d Dept 2018]; Arriaga v
Michael Laub Co., 233 AD2d 244, 245 [1st Dept 1996]). Bounce filed an "amended" notice of
motion almost four months after its original notice of motion (see NYSCEF Doc. 155) and after
opposition to its motion in chief was already submitted (see NYSCEF Doc. 134). Thus,
consideration of the amended notice of motion would be improper. To the extent that All star and
Owner made crossclaims against Bounce, those claims are dismissed. As Plaintiffs Complaint
against Bounce is dismissed these claims are no longer viable.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that Defendant Bounce's motion for summary judgment is granted in part; and
it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Bounce's motion for summary judgment is granted to the
extent that Plaintiffs Complaint and Defendant Allstar and Defendant Owner's crossclaims
against Defendant Bounce are hereby dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Bounce's motion for summary judgment on its crossclaims
against Defendant Allstar and Defendant Owner is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Defendant Bounce shall serve a copy
of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
5/2/2025 DATE ON. MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: x CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED x GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
152450/2021 DOREN, CHRISTOPHER vs. ALLSTAR SECURITY & Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 002
5 of 5 [* 5]