Motion for Summary Judgment in Robert Harris v. Intimo, Inc., Nathan Nathan, Tommy Nathan, Moris Zilkha, Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, Prestige Employee Administrators Ii, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, John Does 1 - 10, Abc Corps. 1

On January 10, 2017 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Robert Harris, and Abc Corps. 1 - 8, Intimo, Inc., John Does 1 - 10, Moris Zilkha, Nathan Nathan, Prestige Employee Administrators Ii, Inc. A K A Prestige Employee Administrators, Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. A K A Prestige Employee Administrators, Tommy Nathan, for Commercial - Contract in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020
Exhibit N, Harris Brief in Opposition to Prestige's Motion for Summary Judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

ROBERT HARRIS, Plaintiff designates
New York County as the
Place of Trial

Basis of Venue is
Plaintiff, Location of Relevant Events
Index No. 650175/2017
vs. Date Purchased 1/10/2017
INTIMO, INC., NATHAN NATHAN
individually, TOMMY NATHAN, individually,
MORIS ZILKHA, individually, PRESTIGE
EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS, INC.
a/k/a PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE
ADMINISTRATORS, PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE
ADMINISTRATORS II, INC. a/k/a PRESTIGE
EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS and JOHN
DOES 1-10, and ABC CORPS. 1-8,
fictitious names for persons or entities whose
present roles and identities are unknown,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW OPPOSING THE PRESTIGE DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

MEYERS FRIED-GRODIN, LLP
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Phone: (646) 596-1292
E-mail: JMeyers@MfgLegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Harris

Of Counsel and on the Brief:
Jonathan Meyers, Esq.

1 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

PROCEDURAL HISTORY.............................................................................................................2

COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION ...................................3

LEGAL ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................5

I. BECAUSE MATERIAL FACT ISSUES EXIST AS TO WHETHER THE
PRESTIGE DEFENDANTS WERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THEIR
MOTION MUST BE DENIED ...........................................................................................5

II. THE NEW YORK PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ACT DOES NOT
ALLOW PRESTIGE TO ESCAPE LIABILITY ................................................................5

III. PLAINTIFF’S JOINT EMPLOYER CLAIMS AGAINST THE PRESTIGE
DEFENDANTS ARE VIABLE ………………………………………………………..…6

A. The Prestige Defendants Explicitly Admit they Were Plaintiff’s Employer ...........7

B. The Prestige Defendants Had Sufficient Authority and Control Over
Plaintiff to Be Considered His Joint Employer........................................................7

C. Plaintiff’s Other Claims Against the Prestige Defendants Are Proper ....................9

1. Insofar as the Prestige Defendants Were Plaintiff’s Employer, They Are
Equally Liable as Intimo on Plaintiff’s Other Claims .............................................9

2. The Other Claims Are Not Subject to Dismissal on a “Duplicativness”
Basis .........................................................................................................................9

VI. SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE DISCOVERY IS
NOT COMPLETE…………………………………………………… …………………10

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………..……11

2 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff Robert Harris opposes the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Prestige

Employee Administrators, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee Administrators’ and Prestige Employee

Administrators II, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee Administrators’ (the “Prestige Defendants”).

Material issues of fact exist as to whether the Prestige Defendants were Plaintiff’s joint

employer, along with the other Defendants (the “Intimo Defendants”).

To begin with, while New York does have a Professional Employers Organization statute, that

Act does not shield PEOs of liability or prohibit application of a joint employer theory to PEOs.

Next, the Prestige Defendants prepared documents explicitly stating that Plaintiff is their

employee. One document the Prestige Defendants had Plaintiff sign states: “I Robert Harris, an

employee of Prestige Administrators, Inc. hereby authorize the employer to deduct from my wages

for contribution for benefits . . .” Additionally, the Employee Handbook promulgated by the Prestige

Defendants states about Intimo and Prestige: “Both are your employers.” (emphasis added).

And at his deposition, the Prestige Corporate Representative admitted that Plaintiff was

employed by Prestige.

Moreover, in its Service Agreement with Intimo, Prestige obtained control and authority over the

employees.

Either Prestige was Plaintiff’s employer, or it wasn’t. If it was, then it is equally as liable as

Intimo, to Plaintiff. Indeed, Prestige benefited from Plaintiff’s work. Here, there is an abundance of

evidence showing that the Prestige Defendants were Plaintiff’s employer. This creates a material fact

issue for a jury.

Accordingly, the Prestige Defendants’ summary judgment motion must be denied.

3 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Summons and Complaint that initiated the instant

lawsuit. See Exhibit M to Prestige Moving Aff. at ¶ 59. 1

On February 10, 2017, the Intimo Defendants filed a motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in

its entirety for Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7).

That motion was denied in part and granted in part, as set forth in the Court’s Decision and Order dated

December 12, 2018. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, dated January 6, 2020, aimed at

appealing the portions of the Order that dismissed some of Plaintiff’s substantive claims.

On April 23, 2019, Plaintiff and the Intimo Defendants entered into a Stipulation and Order

permitting Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to add the Prestige Defendants into the case. On May 28,

2019, the Court signed that Stipulation and Order.

On June 4, 2019 Employee Administrators, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee Administrators was

served with the Summons and Amended Complaint on June 4, 2019.

In lieu of filing an Answer, on July 24, 2019, the Prestige Defendants filed motion aimed at

dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint as against them. On November 21, 2019, the Prestige Defendants

withdrew that motion.

Both the Prestige Defendants and Intimo Defendants have failed to provide important discovery.

Therefore, on September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery aimed at the Intimo

Defendants. That motion has been fully submitted and a decision remains pending. Additionally,

following depositions and issues raised therein, on December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed another motion to

compel discovery aimed at both the Prestige Defendants and the Intimo Defendants. That motion

remains pending.

1
“Prestige Moving Aff.” Refers to the Affidavit of Prestige’s counsel, dated January 17, 2020, submitted as part
of their summary judgment moving papers.

4 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION

The following is a summary of the factual background relevant to this motion:

A. The Prestige Defendants Had an Express Right of Direction and Control Over Plaintiff
Including Hiring, Firing and Disciplinary Authority

In Prestige’s Service Agreement with Intimo, Prestige was expressly granted the right of direction and

control over employees (including Plaintiff). It states:

Prestige shall have sufficient authority as may be required be any applicable law so as
to maintain a right of direction and control over assigned employees assigned to
client’s location and shall retain such such authority to hire, terminate, discipline, and
reassign assigned employees.

Exhibit G to Prestige Moving Aff. at p.2.

Additionally, the Service Agreement calls for Prestige to pay employees and to “maintain

necessary records and comply with reporting procedures. . .” Ibid.

B. The Prestige Defendants Explicitly Held Themselves Out as Plaintiff’s Employer

In the Intimo Defendants’ interrogatory answers, the Intimo Defendants identify Plaintiff’s

employers as being – in addition to Intimo – “Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc.” Meyers Aff. at

¶¶ 5-7 and Exhibits C & D thereto. 2

At his deposition, Prestige’s Corporate Representative admitted that the Employee Handbook

given to Plaintiff states that both Intimo and Prestige were his employers. And he specifically testified:

“In the co-employment relationship, yes, legally we are both employers.” Exh. B to Meyers Aff. at

28:14-29:11.

Additionally, on or about March 7, 2019, the Intimo Defendants produced documents concerning

Plaintiff which include documents that look to be of the kind ordinarily found in an employee’s

2
“Meyers Aff.” refers to the opposition certification of Jonathan Meyers, Esq., dated January 27, 2020.

5 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

personnel file. While some of those documents bear the name “Intimo, Inc.” on them, others identify

Prestige Employee Administrators. Meyers Aff. at ¶¶ 8-15 & Exhibits E through J thereto.

For example, one document produced by the Intimo Defendants is entitled “Prestige Employee

Administrators Employee Termination Report” which reads “Employee : Robert Harris” Exhibit E to

Meyers Aff.

Another such example is document entitled “Prestige Employee Administrators Application for

Employment” which was completed by Plaintiff. Exhibit F to Meyers Aff.

Yet another example is document entitled “Prestige Employee Administrators Employee

Authorization & Waiver” which states: “I Robert Harris, an employee of Prestige Administrators,

Inc. hereby authorize the employer to deduct from my wages for contribution for benefits (i.e. group

health insurance, group dental insurance, life insurance, 401(k) etc.). Exhibit G to Meyers Aff.

(emphasis added).

And another example is document entitled “Prestige Employee Administrators COBRA Notice

Acknowledgement Form” which identifies Robert Harris as “Employee.” Exhibit H to Meyers Aff.

Additionally, there is the document entitled “Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. For Intimo,

Inc. Employee Handbook” which states: “This Handbook was developed by Prestige for the utilization

of Intimo, Inc. Prestige and the Company are co-employers. In a co-employment relationship, duties

and responsibilities are allocated between Prestige and the Company. Both are your employers.” See

Exhibit I to Meyers Aff. at page Bates numbered DEF000095.

Plaintiff signed an acknowledgement of the aforementioned handbook. Exhibit J to Meyers Aff.

C. Plaintiff Understood Prestige to Be His Employer

Based upon representations made by the Prestige Employers, Plaintiff understood the Prestige

Defendants to be his employer. He testified:

6 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

I was hired by Nathan, and three months after that, as I’m reminded after looking at these
documents, Prestige became a co-employer, joint employer, and they handled my paycheck, it
was drafted by them, it had their name on it. I viewed them as a joint employer.

Exh. A to Meyers Aff. at 229:16-230:5.

LEGAL ARGUMENT
I. BECAUSE MATERIAL FACT ISSUES EXIST AS TO WHETHER THE
PRESTIGE DEFENDANTS WERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THEIR
MOTION MUST BE DENIED

Summary judgment is a “drastic remedy” and can be gratned only where no material or triable

issue of fact exists. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 (1986);

Mandelos v. Karavasidis, 86 N.Y.2d 767, 768-69 (1995). The movant must come forward with

evidence “sufficien[t] to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment.” CPLR 3212(b).

The Court must draw all reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant/Plaintiff. See, e.g., Negri v.

Stop & Shop, Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 625, 626, 491 N.Y.S.2d 151 (1985). “A motion for summary judgment

‘should not be greanted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from

the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility.”

Here, the record is rife with facts indicating that – in addition Intimo – the Prestige Defendants

were also Plaintiff’s employer. Accordingly, summary judgment should be denied.

II. THE NEW YORK PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ACT DOES
NOT ALLOW PRESTIGE TO ESCAPE LIABILITY

The Prestige Defendants largely hang their arguments on the New York Professional Employer

Act (NYLL §§ 915 through 924). However, there is nothing in the statute holding that a professional

employer organization (“PEO”) is immune from liability to employees under the NYLL. Niether does

the statute state that a PEO is not an employee’s employer by virtue of being a PEO. And the statute

places no limitations upon holding a PEO liable to an employee, jointly with the PEO’s client company.

7 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

To the contrary, “. . .the statute, in a general sense, confers joint employment status on the PEO and

its client . . .” Matter of Robsonwoese, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 774, 840 N.Y.S.2d 638 (3rd Dep't

2007)(emphasis added).

Prestige may wish that the PEO Act immunizes it from liability from employees, but it does not.

In sum, the PEO Act has no bearing on the case at bar.

III. PLAINTIFF’S JOINT EMPLOYER CLAIMS AGAINST THE PRESTIGE
DEFENDANTS ARE VIABLE

Plaintiff Harris has viable claims for unpaid wages/commissions under under breach of contract

and related causes of action. These claims are properly brought against the Prestige Defendants because

they (and Intimo) were joint employers of Plaintiff. 3

To employ, is defined as to “suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). See Jimenez v.

Concepts of Indep., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 30257 at p. *3 (U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)(the NYLL follows

the same “suffer or permit” definition).

Similarly, the NYLL broadly defines employer as: “‘Employer’ includes any person,

corporation, limitied liability company, or association employing any individual in any occupation,

industry, trade, business or service.” NYLL § 190(3). See also, Jimenez at p. *3, noting the breadth of

the definition.

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff performed work with the permission of both the Intimo and

Prestige Defendants. Both Intimo and Prestige had the requiste authority and control to be Plaintiff’s

employer -- and both held themselves out as being his employer. Those representations cannot be

3
Plaintiff does not oppose the Prestige Defendants’ request for dismissal of his claims against Prestige for age
discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law and New York State Human Rights
Law. Following certain discovery, Plaintiff agreed to stipulate to the withdrawal of those age/retaliation claims
agsinst the Prestige Defendants.

8 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

glossed over as mere fictions. They must count for something. Otherwise, the law would be supporting

a deceptive ruse.

A. The Prestige Defendants Explicitly Admit they Were Plaintiff’s Employer

The Prestige Defendants admit that they are employers (along with Intimo) of Plaintiff. The

Prestige/Intimo Employee Handbook outright states it. See Exhibit I to Meyers Aff. at page Bates

numbered DEF000095. The Intimo Defendants similarly state that Prestige was also an employer of

Plaintiff. See Exhibits C & D to Meyers Aff. (at rog answer 34). The cover of the Employee Handbook

bear Prestige’s logo and then repeats its name and then lists Intimo’s name. It is therefore only

reasonable for the reader of the handbook to assume that both the Intimo Defendants and Prestige

Defendants had the authority and control over the many areas of control over his work that are addressed

in the Employee Handbook. Those areas of control include: Code of Conduct (page 8), Attendance

(page 15), Discipline (page 9), Performance Reviews (page 16), Separation from Employment (page

26), etc.

In light of this, it is hardly surprising that Plaintiff believed he was jointly employed by both

Intimo and Prestige.

Even Prestige’s Corporate Representative admitted that Prestige was an employer of Plaintiff.

These admissions are conclusive.

B. The Prestige Defendants Had Sufficient Authority and Control Over Plaintiff
to Be Considered His Joint Employer

Even if the Prestige Defendants had not admitted being Plaintiff’s employer, the control and

authority they had, render them his joint employers.

As a threshold matter, itis not dispositive that Mr. Harris reported to Intimo’s Nathan Nathan

and considered Mr. Nathan to be his boss. The definition of “employer” is “expansive.” Zavala v. 411

9 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

Holbrook Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 30434 at p. *3 (U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017). Indeed, it is not necessary for

a company to exercise control and authority over the plaintiff to impute an employer/employee

relationship. It is enough for the company to simply possess that power. Id. at p. *4. For these

reasons, the Zavala court refused to grant summary judgment in a case similar to the one at bar. See

also Brankov v. Hazzard, 142 A.D.3d 445 (1st Dep’t 2016)(of the factors to consider “the extent of the

employers right to control the employee is most important and, if established, the other factors “are then

of marginal importance”).

Here, it is undisputed that the Prestige Defendants’ agreement with Intimo gave Prestige the

power over the very points that establish joint employer liability – namely, control and authority over

hiring and firing, discipline, and transfer. Exhibit G to Prestige Moving Aff. at p.2.

Notably, the Employee Handbook does not state that the Prestige Defendants lack the authority

and control over these issues with respect to Plaintiff. Indeed, it was Prestige that issued Plaintiff his

written termination notice. See Exhibit 4 to Meyers Aff. And it was Prestige that issued a job

application with its logo on it to Plaintiff. See Exhibit 5 to Meyers Aff. This projects hiring and firing

authority on Prestige’s part. Accordingly, just as the Zavala court denied summary judgment, so too

should the Court here.

The primarily relief Plaintiff seeks here is under a theory of breach of contract. However, just

because Plaintif and Nathan Nathan entered into that agreement does not excuse the Prestige Defendants

from liability. Either Prestige was a joint employer of Plaintiff or itwas not. If it was, then Nathan

Nathan acted with apparent authority to bind Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s employer to the contract. See, e.g.,

Scharf v. Idaho Farmer’s Market, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 500, 501 (1st Dep’t 2014); and Gonzalez v. Beacon

Terminal Associates L.P., 48 A.D.3d 518, 520 (2nd Dep’t 2008)(apparent authority creates fact issue

precluding summary judgment).

10 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

Morever, the Prestige Defendants benefited from the contract. Prestige was paid by Intimo to be

Plaintiff’s employer. Prestige cannot enjoy the fruits of that contract and then walk away from it after it

has been breached. See HTRF Ventures, LLC v. Permasteelisa N. Am. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op

32095(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019).

C. Plaintiff’s Other Claims Against the Prestige Defendants Are Proper

1. Insofar as the Prestige Defendants Were Plaintiff’s Employer, They Are Equally Liable
as Intimo on Plaintiff’s Other Claims

Plaintiff’s fraud and promissory estoppel claims are based upon similar justifications as his

breach of contract claim and those jusitifcations preclude summary judgment being granted as to them.

Next, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim allows for recovery where “broad considerations of

equity and justice” exist. Andersen ex rel. Ansersen, Weinroth & Co., L.P. v. Weinroth, 849 N.Y.S.2d

210, 222 (1st Dep’t 2007). Here, equitable principles allow Plaintiff to recover from Prestige. This is

the only result that would be fair, given that Prestige held itself out as Plaintiff’s employer.

Additionally, the fruits of Plaintiff’s unpaid efforts indirectly benefitted Presitge. By Plaintiff providing

his efforts to Intimo, it allowed Intimo to thrive as a business and thereby be able to pay Prestige for its

PEO services.

Plaintiff’s quantum meruit claims are governed by similar equitable principles and they compel

the same result.

2. The Other Claims Are Not Subject to Dismissal on a “Duplicativness” Basis

Although Plaintiff has a pending claim for breach of contract, he is still permitted to maintain

alternative claims. “Causes of action may be stated alternatively or hypothetically.” CPLR R 3014.

“Undeniably, a plaintiff is entitled to advance inconsistent theories in allegeing a right to recovery.”

Cohn v. Lionel Corp., 21 N.Y.2d 559, 563, 289 N.Y.S.2d 404, 408 (1968). Mr. Harris’ other claims are

all pled in the alternative and therefore are not subject to disissal.

11 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

For example, see Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v. Wal-ber 36th Street Assoc., 187 A.D.2d 225, 594

N.Y.S.2d 144 (1st Dep’t 1993). There, in a case involving an unpaid commission, the Court upheld

alternative causes of action based on contract and quatum meruit:

In this State where a litigant fails to establish the right to recover upon an express
contract he may, in the same action, recover in quantum meruit. [Citations omitted]. If
warranted by the pleadings and proof, the case may be submitted to a jury on both
theories and an election need not be made. [Citations omitted]." (Supra, 305 N.Y. at 73,
111 N.E.2d 209; see also, Byrne v. Gillies Co., 144 App.Div. 677, 129 N.Y.S. 602, Walar
v. Rechnitz, 126 App.Div. 424, 110 N.Y.S. 777).

Thus, it appears that where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or
where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue, plaintiff may proceed upon a
theory of quantum meruit and will not be required to elect his or her remedies.

Id. at 146.

Similarly in the recent Man Advisors, Inc. v. Selkoe, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 05483 (1st Dept. July 9,

2019) the First Department reversed the dismissal of a fraudulent inducement cause of action that the

trial court dismissed on the ground of “duplicativeness” of a breach of contract claim.

Here the Intimo Defendants dispute whether there is a contact in existence between them and Mr.

Harris. Indeed, they moved (unsuccessfully) to dismiss Mr. Harris’ breach of contract claim on their

original motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Intimo Defendants will seek to dismiss the

contract claim again on a summary judgement motion. The Man Advisors and Joseph Sternberg

decisions aim at avoiding a total loss of remedy for a plaintiff like Mr. Harris – should his breach of

contract claim ultimately be dismissed on a summary judgment motion. Accordingly, summary

judgment cannot be granted.

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE DISCOVERY
IS NOT COMPLETE

Where discovery is not complete, a party may not obtain a grant of summary judgment. See

CPLR § 3212(f) and, e.g., De France v. Oestrike, 187 N.Y.S.2d 186, 8 A.D.2d 735 (2nd Dep’t 1959).

12 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2020
02/10/2020 12:37
04:16 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 192
229 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2020
02/10/2020

Here, the Prestige Defendants have not complied with their discovery obligations. A motion

aimed at compelling their outstanding discovery is currently pending.

CONCLUSION

Material issues of fact exist as to whether the Prestige Defendants were Plaintiff’s joint employer

(along with the Intimo Defendants). Again and again Prestige represented itself to Plaintiff as being his

employer. In its Service Agreement with Intimo, Prestige staked out control and authority over the

employees. Prestige’s Corporate Representative even admitted that Presitge employed Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Prestige Defendants’ summary judgment motion must be denied.

MEYERS FRIED-GRODIN, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Harris

By: ____________________________________
Dated: January 27, 2020 Jonathan Meyers, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Phone: (646) 596-1292
E-mail: JMeyers@MfgLegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Harris

13 of 13

Case Info

Judge

Nancy M. Bannon Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 10, 2020

Case Filing Date

January 10, 2017

County

Parties

ABC Corps. 1 - 8 Defendant
BAGINSKI, ERIC TADEUSZ Attorney for the Defendants
Intimo, Inc. Defendant
John Does 1 - 10 Defendant
LICHTENBERG, DAVID B. Attorney for the Defendant
LICHTENBERG, DAVID B. Attorney for the Defendants
MARCUS, SETH L Attorney for the Defendant
MARCUS, SETH L Attorney for the Defendants
MEYERS, JONATHAN Attorney for the Plaintiff
Moris Zilkha Defendant
Nathan Nathan Defendant
Prestige Employee Administrators II, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee Administrators Defendant
Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. a/k/a Prestige Employee Administrators Defendant
Robert Harris Plaintiff
Tommy Nathan Defendant
JONATHAN MEYER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jessica Meyers Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ERIC TANT Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: Robert Harris v. Intimo, Inc., Nathan Nathan, Tommy Nathan, Moris Zilkha, Prestige Employee Administrators, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, Prestige Employee Administrators Ii, Inc. A/K/A Prestige Employee Administrators, John Does 1 - 10, Abc Corps. 1 - 8

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties