Funaki v. Starbucks Corp.

2025 NY Slip Op 30583(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: February 21, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 153275/2020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Funaki v Starbucks Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 30583(U) February 21, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153275/2020 Judge: Judy H. Kim 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. 153275/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JUDY H. KIM PART 04 Justice -----------------------X INDEX NO. 153275/2020 KOHEi FUNAKI, MOTION DATE 10/24/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 - V -

STARBUCKS CORPORATION D/B/A STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, HIGHGATE SECURITY & DECISION + ORDER ON LOCKSMITH LLC, MOTION

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 were read on this motion for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

In a decision and order dated September 23, 2024, this Court granted defendant Starbucks

Corporation's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs motion for summary

judgment 1 (the "Prior Decision"). Plaintiff now moves for leave to reargue the Prior Decision and,

upon reargument, seeks an order from this Court denying Starbucks's motion and granting

plaintiff's motion. The instant motion is granted and, upon reargument, Starbucks's motion for

summary judgment is denied and the Court adheres to its previous denial of plaintiff's summary

judgment motion.

A motion to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or

misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion ... " (CPLR 2221 [d][2]). "Reargument

is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues

1 The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts and incorporates herein the factual and procedural history set out in the Prior Decision.

153275/2020 FUNAKI, KOHEi vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATION O/8/A Page 1 of4 Motion No. 002

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 153275/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2025

previously decided ... or to present arguments different from those originally asserted" (Setters v

AI Properties and Developments (USA) Corp., 139 AD3d 492, 492 [1st Dept 2016] [internal

citations and quotations omitted]).

Plaintiff argues that the Court overlooked plaintiff's deposition testimony that he did not

recall the yellow caution signs placed on the ground in front of each door depicted in the

photographs submitted by defendant (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 80 [Marked Photos] and 79 [Funaki

EBT at pp. 48, 50, 144]) and misapplied the law in concluding that the three paper signs affixed to

the functioning door (the "Signs") unambiguously warned of the specific danger at issue (the

unhinged door to its right). The Court is not persuaded by plaintiff's first point, because its

conclusion in the Prior Decision was based on the Signs posted on the Starbucks's door "directing

customers to use a different entrance" (Funaki v Starbucks Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op. 33332[U], 3

[Sup Ct, NY County 2024]) rather than the presence of the yellow caution signs. However, the

Court agrees that it erred in concluding that the Signs affixed to the working entrance door were

sufficient warning as a matter of law such that summary judgment was warranted.

"[T]he question of what, if any, warning is reasonable under the circumstances is usually

a question of fact for the jury" (Van Alstine v Kentucky Fried Chicken ofCalifornia Inc., 292 AD2d

737, 738 [3d Dept 2002] [internal citations omitted]; see also Hewett v Conway Stores, Inc., 266

AD2d 13 7, 13 7 [1st Dept 1999] ["If a jury determines that defendants had adequate notice of the

hazard, there is also a triable issue as to whether they took sufficient precautions to minimize the

danger to pedestrians in the area by placing rugs, mats or warning signs either on the store entrance

or on the steps where plaintiff fell"]). While this question may, on occasion, be resolved as a matter

of law when a warning "sufficiently conveyed the specific danger to which claimants ... would be

exposed" (Arsenault v State, 96 AD3d 97, 102 [3d Dept 2012] [emphasis added]), it does not apply

153275/2020 FUNAKI, KOHEi vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATION D/8/A Page 2 of4 Motion No. 002

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 153275/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2025

here. Rather, given the Signs' directive that patrons should use the "side door" with arrows

pointing toward the unhinged door, the Court agrees with plaintiff that it is for the factfinder to

determine whether the Signs---on their own or in conjunction with the yellow caution signs, to the

extent it is established that these caution signs were present at the time of the incident-adequately

warned plaintiff of the danger presented by the unhinged door or whether plaintiff reasonably

understood these Signs to be directing him to use that unhinged door.

The cases cited by plaintiff are inapplicable, as they involve unambiguous warnings of

specific hazards through signage (see Rivero v Spillane Enterprises, Corp., 95 AD3d 984, 985 [2d

Dept 2012]; Hammond v Intl. Paper Co., 161 AD2d 914, 914-15 [3d Dept 1990]), speech (see

Fernandez v Rutman, 120 AD3d 545, 546 [2d Dept 2014]), the presence of an employee of

defendant addressing the condition (see McMullin v Martin's Food of S. Burlington, Inc., 122

AD3d 1103, 1105 [3d Dept 2014]) or all of the above (see Stasiak v Sears, Roebuck and Co., 281

AD2d 533, 533-34 [2d Dept 2001]).

In addition, since a question of fact exists as to the sufficiency of Starbucks' s warnings,

the principle enunciated in Arsenault v State that where a sign sufficiently warns of a specific

danger the fact that "another type or configuration of warning sign---one that was larger in size,

brighter in color or stronger in tone" may have been more effective does not present a bar to

summary judgment (Arsenault v State, 96 AD3d 97, 101-03 [3d Dept 2012]) does not apply.

Finally, this issue of fact also precludes summary judgment for plaintiff, and the Court therefore

adheres to so much of the Prior Decision as denied plaintiff's motion for that relief.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue is granted; and it is further

153275/2020 FUNAKI, KOHEi vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATION D/B/A Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 153275/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2025

ORDERED that, upon reargument, Starbucks Corporation's motion for summary

judgment is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the Court adheres to so much of the Prior Decision as denied plaintiffs

motion for summary judgment; and it is

ORDERED that plaintiff is to serve a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry,

upon defendants as well as on the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and the Clerk

of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119); and it is further

ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the

"EFiling" page on this court's website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Trial Support Office shall restore this action to the active

trial calendar.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

2/21/2025 DATE

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-Fl AL DISPOSITION

GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

153275/2020 FUNAKI, KOHEi vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATION D/B/A Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002

4 of 4 [* 4]