Plaintiff store-customer was not entitled to add Security Company as a defendant in plaintiff’s action against Kmart because the proposed claim failed to state a cause of action.
Plaintiff store-customer was not entitled to add Security Company as a defendant in plaintiff’s action against Kmart because the proposed claim failed to state a cause of action.
Security Company hired by Kmart owed no duty to plaintiff, a Kmart customer who was injured in a fight with a Kmart employee inside a Kmart store. First, plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary under the contract between Kmart and Security Company because the contract contained a “No Third Party Beneficiaries” clause.
Second, plaintiff made no claim that he detrimentally relied on Security Company’s continued performance of its contract with Kmart. Plaintiff’s affidavit said nothing about plaintiff’s knowledge of the contract or about plaintiff’s detrimental reliance on Security Company’s continued performance thereunder.
Third, Security Company did not “entirely displace” Kmart’s duty to protect its customers. The written scope of Security Company’s services included “the protection of … customers … in the Premises,” but the deposition testimony of the loss prevention manager at the relevant Kmart store clarified that, in actual practice, Security Company’s services at that store were limited to deterring shoplifting. In addition, Kmart retained supervisory authority over Security Company’s guards and required Security Company’s staff to complete training in accordance with Kmart’s safety policies and procedures.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add the Security Company hired by Kmart as a defendant was therefore denied for failure to state a cause of action.
Santiago v. K-Mart Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01296 (1st Dep’t Feb. 27, 2018) http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01296.htm
