April 03, 2025|Articles/Op-eds
April 3, 2025 | Supreme Court of New York, Richmond County | Unreported Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unreported decision, Justice Ronald Castorina, Jr. of the Richmond County Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC, dismissing with prejudice all claims brought against them by an employee of a Staten Island franchisee. The plaintiff alleged she was injured when a stairway step collapsed on the premises. The Court found no evidence that Dunkin owned, occupied, or controlled the property and emphasized testimony that the franchisee or landlord was solely responsible for maintenance. Citing long-standing New York precedent, the Court reiterated that absent proof of a principal–agent relationship or a high degree of control, franchisors are not responsible for franchisee premises conditions. At the same time, the Court enforced Dunkin’s indemnification rights under the franchise agreement, requiring the franchisee to defend and indemnify Dunkin. The decision is a strong reminder of the protections franchisors can achieve through clear contractual language.
Relevant Background
Plaintiff Shahnaj Kabir, an employee of franchisee West Service Rd., LLC, alleged that on January 29, 2020, she fell when a stairway step gave way while she was descending to the basement of a Dunkin’ Donuts store located at 180 West Service Road in Staten Island. Kabir claimed the stairs were defective, poorly maintained, and lacked adequate safety features.
She brought suit against multiple parties, including Dunkin corporate entities, West Service (the franchisee), QSR Management, Big E Deli N Fuel Corp., and the property owners. Dunkin argued that it neither owned nor controlled the premises and pointed to the franchise agreement, which required the franchisee to maintain the premises “in the highest degree of cleanliness, orderliness, sanitation and repair” and to indemnify Dunkin against claims arising out of the operation or condition of the store.
Decision
The Court addressed several motions, but the rulings most significant for franchisors involved Dunkin.
The Court dismissed all claims against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC with prejudice. It emphasized that liability for dangerous property conditions “is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control or special use of the property” (Nappi v. Inc. Vill. of Lynbrook, 19 A.D.3d 565, 565 (2d Dep’t 2005)), and Dunkin did not fit within those categories.
The Court cited testimony from Dunkin’s market representative, who explained that Dunkin’s role was limited to providing recommendations related to brand standards, while “maintenance of the building…would be 100 percent up to the franchisee or the landlord depending on their agreement.” (Tr. of Peter Nappi Dep. at 27, 38–39). The Court concluded: “No proof has been provided of a principal/agency relationship or proof that Dunkin exercised a high degree of control over West Service.”
In support of its conclusion, the Court relied on Smith-Hoy v. AMC Prop. Evaluations, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 809, 810 (2d Dep’t 2008), which held that “absent proof of a principal/agency relationship or proof that a franchisor exercised a high degree of control over its franchisee, there is no basis for holding a franchisor responsible for its franchisee’s misconduct.”
In addition, the Court granted Dunkin’s cross-claims for contractual indemnification against West Service Rd., LLC. Section 5.4 of the franchise agreement required the franchisee to “save, defend, exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless Franchisor” from “any and all claims based upon, arising out of, or in any way related to the operation or condition of any part of the Unit or the Premises.” The Court described this provision as “clear and unequivocal” and enforceable under New York law. See Matter of Islip Theaters v. Landmark Plaza Props. Corp., 195 A.D.3d 828, 829 (2d Dep’t 2021).
Other rulings included: striking Big E’s answer for failure to appear for deposition; granting summary judgment to West Service on workers’ compensation grounds; and denying QSR Management’s motion for summary judgment after it failed to appear at oral argument.
Looking Forward
For franchisors, Kabir v. Formica illustrates how courts may analyze franchise agreements and allocate responsibility in premises liability cases.
- Franchisor liability was limited here. The Court determined that Dunkin’ did not own, occupy, or control the premises where the accident occurred. Testimony underscored that the franchisee or landlord bore responsibility for building maintenance and hazard prevention, and the Court found this sufficient to remove Dunkin from the case. While outcomes depend on the facts, the case shows that courts may draw a line between permissible brand oversight and the type of daily control that could support liability.
- Contractual indemnification played a key role. Dunkin not only obtained dismissal but also secured enforcement of indemnification provisions in the franchise agreement, requiring the franchisee to defend and indemnify the franchisor. This outcome highlights the practical value of clear, unambiguous indemnification clauses in shifting the burden of defense and liability to the franchisee where claims arise from store operations or conditions.
Although the case continues against other defendants, Dunkin was dismissed and obtained indemnification rights. For franchisors, the decision reinforces the importance of franchise agreements that clearly allocate operational responsibility to franchisees while preserving indemnification, providing franchisors with a strong defense against premises liability claims.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
Executive Summary
In an unreported decision, Justice Ronald Castorina, Jr. of the Richmond County Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC, dismissing with prejudice all claims brought against them by an employee of a Staten Island franchisee. The plaintiff alleged she was injured when a stairway step collapsed on the premises. The Court found no evidence that Dunkin owned, occupied, or controlled the property and emphasized testimony that the franchisee or landlord was solely responsible for maintenance. Citing long-standing New York precedent, the Court reiterated that absent proof of a principal–agent relationship or a high degree of control, franchisors are not responsible for franchisee premises conditions. At the same time, the Court enforced Dunkin’s indemnification rights under the franchise agreement, requiring the franchisee to defend and indemnify Dunkin. The decision is a strong reminder of the protections franchisors can achieve through clear contractual language.
Relevant Background
Plaintiff Shahnaj Kabir, an employee of franchisee West Service Rd., LLC, alleged that on January 29, 2020, she fell when a stairway step gave way while she was descending to the basement of a Dunkin’ Donuts store located at 180 West Service Road in Staten Island. Kabir claimed the stairs were defective, poorly maintained, and lacked adequate safety features.
She brought suit against multiple parties, including Dunkin corporate entities, West Service (the franchisee), QSR Management, Big E Deli N Fuel Corp., and the property owners. Dunkin argued that it neither owned nor controlled the premises and pointed to the franchise agreement, which required the franchisee to maintain the premises “in the highest degree of cleanliness, orderliness, sanitation and repair” and to indemnify Dunkin against claims arising out of the operation or condition of the store.
Decision
The Court addressed several motions, but the rulings most significant for franchisors involved Dunkin.
The Court dismissed all claims against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC with prejudice. It emphasized that liability for dangerous property conditions “is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control or special use of the property” (Nappi v. Inc. Vill. of Lynbrook, 19 A.D.3d 565, 565 (2d Dep’t 2005)), and Dunkin did not fit within those categories.
The Court cited testimony from Dunkin’s market representative, who explained that Dunkin’s role was limited to providing recommendations related to brand standards, while “maintenance of the building…would be 100 percent up to the franchisee or the landlord depending on their agreement.” (Tr. of Peter Nappi Dep. at 27, 38–39). The Court concluded: “No proof has been provided of a principal/agency relationship or proof that Dunkin exercised a high degree of control over West Service.”
In support of its conclusion, the Court relied on Smith-Hoy v. AMC Prop. Evaluations, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 809, 810 (2d Dep’t 2008), which held that “absent proof of a principal/agency relationship or proof that a franchisor exercised a high degree of control over its franchisee, there is no basis for holding a franchisor responsible for its franchisee’s misconduct.”
In addition, the Court granted Dunkin’s cross-claims for contractual indemnification against West Service Rd., LLC. Section 5.4 of the franchise agreement required the franchisee to “save, defend, exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless Franchisor” from “any and all claims based upon, arising out of, or in any way related to the operation or condition of any part of the Unit or the Premises.” The Court described this provision as “clear and unequivocal” and enforceable under New York law. See Matter of Islip Theaters v. Landmark Plaza Props. Corp., 195 A.D.3d 828, 829 (2d Dep’t 2021).
Other rulings included: striking Big E’s answer for failure to appear for deposition; granting summary judgment to West Service on workers’ compensation grounds; and denying QSR Management’s motion for summary judgment after it failed to appear at oral argument.
Looking Forward
For franchisors, Kabir v. Formica illustrates how courts may analyze franchise agreements and allocate responsibility in premises liability cases.
- Franchisor liability was limited here. The Court determined that Dunkin’ did not own, occupy, or control the premises where the accident occurred. Testimony underscored that the franchisee or landlord bore responsibility for building maintenance and hazard prevention, and the Court found this sufficient to remove Dunkin from the case. While outcomes depend on the facts, the case shows that courts may draw a line between permissible brand oversight and the type of daily control that could support liability.
- Contractual indemnification played a key role. Dunkin not only obtained dismissal but also secured enforcement of indemnification provisions in the franchise agreement, requiring the franchisee to defend and indemnify the franchisor. This outcome highlights the practical value of clear, unambiguous indemnification clauses in shifting the burden of defense and liability to the franchisee where claims arise from store operations or conditions.
Although the case continues against other defendants, Dunkin was dismissed and obtained indemnification rights. For franchisors, the decision reinforces the importance of franchise agreements that clearly allocate operational responsibility to franchisees while preserving indemnification, providing franchisors with a strong defense against premises liability claims.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
