Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DEMARCO v. OUELLETTE

September 7, 2005.

LISA DEMARCO, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY OUELLETTE, et al., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD HOLWELL, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This personal injury action is brought by plaintiff Lisa DeMarco against individual defendant Timothy Ouellete, and corporate defendants The Culture Club NYC, Inc. (the "Culture Club, Inc.") and The Culture Club NYC, LLC (the "Culture Club"). Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed*fn1 all claims against Ouellete and the Culture Club, Inc., leaving only defendant Culture Club, which owns a nightclub by the same name on Varick Street in New York City. While patronizing that nightclub on the evening of June 20-21, 2003, plaintiff suffered a fractured ankle when an unidentified male patron fell on her. Plaintiff now claims that the Culture Club is responsible for her injury because it (i) negligently failed to remove the unidentified male from its premises prior to the accident; (ii) operated an inherently dangerous "tiered" dance floor; (iii) negligently allowed the club to become overcrowded; and (iv) violated New York's Dram Shop Act. Defendant Culture Club has moved for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, that motion is granted.

I. Background

  The following facts are taken from the parties' Rule 56.1 statements, affidavits and depositions. Unless otherwise noted, they are not disputed. On the evening of June 20, 2003, plaintiff and a friend, Gina Giarratana, arrived at the Culture Club between 9 and 11 o'clock (Deposition of Lisa DeMarco, p. 22 ("DeMarco Dep.")). Both had been to the Club on several previous occasions. As the evening wore on, the two danced and socialized, consuming approximately two drinks each between the time they arrived and 2 a.m. the next morning. There is no evidence that plaintiff was intoxicated when she arrived at the Club, and plaintiff testified that she remained sober throughout the evening, most of which she spent with Giarratana on the Club's "tiered" dance floor. (DeMarco Dep., p. 41).

  The "tiered" nature of the dance floor can be described as follows. There is a "bottom" level, which is flush with the main floor of the club, but readily distinguishable by embedded lights. (DeMarco Dep., pp. 45-46). This bottom level is roughly square, is constructed of wood, and can accommodate approximately 40-45 dancers. (DeMarco Dep., pp. 28-32, 46; October 12, 2003 Dep. of Luis Vega, p. 18 ("Vega Dep.")). Sitting on top of the bottom level, and entirely contained within it, is a "second" level. (Id.). Relative to the bottom level, this second level is significantly smaller in square footage — it can accommodate between 15 and 25 people — and is reached by climbing a step of approximately one foot. (Vega Dep., p. 17). Like the bottom level, the second level is "lit up", and is otherwise distinguished by a colored band running its perimeter. (DeMarco Dep., p. 46; Vega Dep., p. 17). The "third" or "top" level sits on top of the second level, and is similarly constructed, with a light-colored band running its perimeter. (Id.). It has the smallest square footage of the three levels, and can hold approximately 6 people. (Id.).

  Plaintiff's injury occurred on the second level of the dance floor in the following manner. According to plaintiff, she and Giarratana were dancing just after 2 a.m. when an unidentified male patron bumped into her, causing her to lose her balance and fall straight back. (DeMarco Dep., p. 55). Plaintiff testified that when she landed on the ground, her legs were beneath her as if she was "kneel[ing] down on the floor," with the top of her feet facing down. (Id., pp. 55-59). In a sort of "domino" reaction, the unidentified patron also fell down, landing on top of plaintiff with her left leg still trapped under her. Plaintiff's ankle fractured under the added weight. (Id.). Realizing that she had been seriously injured, plaintiff yelled for the man to get off her, which he did without delay. (Id.).

  There is no dispute that plaintiff's injury was accidental. Plaintiff remembered that between six and eight people fell at the same time she did, including Giarratana. (Id., p. 61). Although plaintiff considered the dance floor to be crowded at the time she fell, so much so that "you [couldn't] see where the [tiers] end[ed]", (Id., p. 64), plaintiff didn't see anyone push, shove, or attack the man who fell on her. (Id., pp. 58, 65). Neither had there been any previous contact that evening between plaintiff and the male patron; plaintiff did not talk to him prior to the accident, and had no recollection of how long he had been at the club that night. (Id., p. 63). In an affidavit signed on December 16, 2004, Giarratana provided a somewhat different perspective on the accident. ("First Giarratana Aff."). She agreed with plaintiff that "[t]he . . . Club seemed overly crowded" at the time of the accident, but added that there "seemed to be a lack of control by the bouncers and security, especially control over [the] crowd from which the [unidentified] male patron . . . fell and crushed [plaintiff's] left ankle." (First Giarratana Aff., ¶ 5). This observation is subject to some dispute. A member of the Club's security staff, Luis Vega, remembered that the crowd was "sparse" at the time of the accident, at least as compared to a "crowded" night, when there could be between 700 and 800 people at the Club and as many as 18 members of the security staff working. (Vega Dep., pp. 13, 16, 21, 27). Although there is no way to tell exactly how many people were in the Club at the time of the accident, a second member of the Club's security staff, Judith Caserta, supported Vega's opinion, explaining during her deposition that the crowd was "movable" (apparently an indication of its controllable, and therefore small, size), and also remembering that she was able to reach plaintiff "immediately" after the accident. (October 22, 2004 Dep. of Judith Caserta, p. 31 ("Caserta Dep.")). As explained more fully, infra, the Court need not resolve this issue.

  In any case, Giarratana's first affidavit offers an additional explanation for the accident, noting that it occurred after "a shoving match, or fight, going on immediately before the [unidentified] male patron" fell on plaintiff. (First Giarratana Aff., ¶ 5).*fn2 Giarratana expanded on this observation in a second affidavit signed on January 27, 2005 ("Second Giarratana Aff."), where she notes that she "remember[ed] seeing [the male patron] prior to the injury . . . at the bar having alcoholic drinks." (Second Giarratana Aff., ¶ 5(c)). It was also her opinion that "[t]his man and his friends were evidently intoxicated on the dance floor in proximity to . . . plaintiff", a claim she supports by noting that the man had a "disheveled appearance" and was behaving "abhorrent[ly]" at the time of the accident. (Id.). According to Ms. Giarratana, despite this behavior, "[n]o action was taken by Club employees against this male patron prior to the incident." (Id., ¶ 5(d)). This evidently surprised her, although there is no evidence that either she or plaintiff complained of roughhousing, or visibly intoxicated patrons on the night of the incident. (DeMarco Dep., p. 108).

  Whatever its exact cause, after the accident plaintiff was escorted outside by Giarratana and two employees of the Club, Luis Vega*fn3 and Judith Caserta.*fn4 On the night in question Vega was working the Club's main floor, where he was able observe most of the dance floor, including the site of the accident. (Vega Dep., p. 10). Although he was unable to describe plaintiff's fall in any detail, he was one of the first Club employees on the scene, and remembered helping another Club employee, Judith Caserta, "pick? up" plaintiff after the fall and escort her out of the club. (Id., pp. 10, 20; Caserta Dep., p. 21). Like Vega, Caserta was a member of the Club's security staff, where she worked as a liaison for female patrons in need of assistance, whether because they were intoxicated or otherwise. (Id., pp. 8-9). It was in this role that she assisted plaintiff outside.*fn5

  Once Vega and Caserta had removed plaintiff from the Club, Caserta asked her to sign an "incident report". The incident report contains a description of the accident, as well as observations of plaintiff's subsequent behavior. According to Caserta, Giarratana provided the accident description, (Caserta Dep., p. 27), which can be found under the heading "Claimant's description of incident in detail", and notes that "[claimant was] pushed by other customers and slipped on [the] dance floor causing her ankle to get hurt." (Incident Report, attached as Ex. F to Cresci Verification). A similarly succinct statement appears just above, under the heading "Nature of Injury", where the report notes that plaintiff was "knocked over by other customers [and] hurt [her] ankle." (Id.). Although plaintiff signed just below both descriptions, at her deposition she disputed the proposition that she "slipped". (DeMarco Dep., p. 75).

  The report also contains a section for staff comments. Under the heading "Employee's Description of Incident in Detail", Caserta wrote that "while interviewing [plaintiff] she appeared to be extremely intoxicated and slur[red] [her] words." (Incident Report, attached as Ex. F to Cresci Verification). Vega's comments support this observation, and also allude to a second reason plaintiff fell, namely, "because she was wearing open heel[ed] shoes." (Id.). As noted, supra, plaintiff vehemently denies that she was intoxicated at the time of her fall; she also testified that her shoes had nothing to do with the accident. (DeMarco Dep, pp. 75-78). By contrast, both Vega and Caserta reaffirmed their comments at their depositions. Vega testified that when he helped plaintiff outside, he remembered her to be "slurring out words and walking off balance, not walking normal." (Vega Dep., p. 10). Caserta testified that, although plaintiff was intoxicated on the night of the accident, she was not removed from the Club because "it is very hard to pinpoint every intoxicated" customer, and in any case plaintiff was not "badly stumbling" or a "troublemaker". (Caserta Dep., p. 25).

  Whatever the exact nature of plaintiff's mental state at the time of the accident — and the Court need not resolve that question — it is clear that approximately thirty minutes after plaintiff was escorted out of the Club, Giarratana drove her to a hospital in Bayonne, New Jersey. (DeMarco Dep., p. 79).*fn6 Hospital records show that plaintiff checked in to the emergency room at 3:07 a.m. (First Giarratana Aff., ¶ 6; Emergency Department Form, attached as Ex. G to Cresci Verification). They also indicate that an x-ray was taken at about the same time, and that plaintiff was diagnosed with an oblique fracture to her left anklebone. After being told that the injury would require surgery, plaintiff was admitted to the hospital. (Radiology Report, attached as Ex. G to Cresci Verification). Surgery was performed the next afternoon, during which pins and plates were placed on the ankle. (DeMarco Dep., p. 81).

  Plaintiff now brings this lawsuit to recover for her injuries. II. Discussion

  Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Similarly, summary judgment should be granted if, "after adequate time for discovery," the non-moving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In deciding whether a genuine issue of a material fact exists, a Court must "examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.