ALLOWAY v. BOWLMOR AMF CORP AMF LLC LP LP LP LLC LLC LLC LLC AAI LLC II LLC PWCM 98 LMA SPC (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerns the imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs are 70 former employees of defendant AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. who filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging age discrimination. In the present action, plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in various unlawful transactions that rendered insolvent defendant Bowlmor AMF Corp. (Bowlmor), the parent company of AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. Defendants-respondents (defendants) moved to dismiss the third amended complaint against them, and Bowlmor, among others, separately moved for costs and sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel (Bowlmor motion). Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendants' respective motions to dismiss and granting the Bowlmor motion insofar as it sought sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel.

We note at the outset that plaintiffs' appeal insofar as it concerns the imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel must be dismissed (see generally Scopelliti v.Town of New Castle, 92 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 681 N.Y.S.2d 472, 704 N.E.2d 226 [1998]). Only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order (see generally CPLR 5511) and, here, it is plaintiffs' counsel rather than plaintiffs themselves who is aggrieved by the court's imposition of sanctions (see Scopelliti, 92 N.Y.2d at 945, 681 N.Y.S.2d 472, 704 N.E.2d 226; Moore v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 638, 639, 942 N.Y.S.2d 513 [1st Dept. 2012], lv dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 1065, 955 N.Y.S.2d 541, 979 N.E.2d 801 [2012]).

Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motions to dismiss the third amended complaint against them inasmuch as plaintiffs lack standing to commence this action (see Argyle Farm & Props., LLC v. Watershed Agric. Council of the N.Y. City Watersheds, Inc., 135 A.D.3d 1262, 1266, 24 N.Y.S.3d 436 [3d Dept. 2016]). “The doctrine of standing is an element of the larger question of justiciability and is designed to ensure that a party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to present a court with a dispute that is capable of judicial resolution” (Security Pac. Natl. Bank v. Evans, 31 A.D.3d 278, 279, 820 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept. 2006], appeal dismissed 8 N.Y.3d 837, 830 N.Y.S.2d 8, 862 N.E.2d 86 [2007]; see Matter of ADM, LLC v. Village of Macedon, 101 A.D.3d 1717, 1718, 957 N.Y.S.2d 538 [4th Dept. 2012]). “The most critical requirement of standing ․ is the presence of ‘injury in fact—an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated’ ” (Security Pac. Natl. Bank, 31 A.D.3d at 279, 820 N.Y.S.2d 2, quoting Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 [1991]).

Here, the primary relief sought in plaintiffs' third amended complaint is the “rescission of previous sales and transfers of Bowlmor assets.” Plaintiffs allege that those transactions financially ruined Bowlmor and will result in its inability to pay future judgments owed to plaintiffs. Significantly, the latter allegation is based on the assumption that plaintiffs are successful in their age discrimination lawsuits that have not yet been filed. Further, plaintiffs did not allege that they are shareholders, directors, or that they hold any ownership interest in Bowlmor, and defendants established that there is no pending bankruptcy proceeding with respect to Bowlmor. Thus, we conclude that plaintiffs' “alleged injuries and claimed damages are entirely speculative, as they are predicated upon hypothetical, future events that may or may not come to pass” (Argyle Farm & Props., LLC, 135 A.D.3d at 1266, 24 N.Y.S.3d 436).

Finally, we have reviewed plaintiffs' remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the order.