Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:20-cv-04772
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC, Judge Buchwald ruled that New York’s fault-apportionment law will apply at trial and rejected Betts’s proposed exceptions.
Margaret Betts and the hotel-related defendants—Sixty Lower East Side, LLC, Sixty Hotels, LLC, and Sixty Hotel Manager, LLC—are affected because fault may be apportioned at trial under New York’s law governing jointly liable parties; the jury may consider Iuori Astakhov’s fault even though he is not a party.
What happened
Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC concerns how responsibility for damages will be assigned at the upcoming trial. Margaret Betts sued the hotel-related defendants but did not sue Iuori Astakhov, whom she identified as her alleged assailant. The defendants argued that New York law allows the jury to consider and assign fault to both the hotel and Astakhov.
Betts relied on an exception for conduct showing reckless disregard for others’ safety. She pointed to the court’s earlier use of the word “reckless” and to that word in her complaint. The court explained that its earlier ruling found the hotel liable for violating a law requiring verification that massage therapists were authorized, but rejected Betts’s other negligence theories and did not find evidence supporting a recklessness theory.
Judge Buchwald ruled that the exception did not apply and that Betts’s late effort to rely on or amend her complaint was untimely and futile. The court stated that New York’s fault-apportionment law will apply at trial and that the jury instructions and verdict form will be consistent with this decision and the earlier ruling.
The detailed version
- Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04772
- Naomi Buchwald
- July 7, 2025
Background
The court addressed the application of New York Civil Practice Law and Rules §§ 1601–1603 before a damages trial scheduled to begin on July 14, 2025. Section 1601 can limit a defendant’s responsibility for noneconomic damages to that defendant’s equitable share when the defendant is found to bear 50 percent or less of the total liability. The statute also permits the jury to consider the fault of other responsible persons in certain circumstances. Section 1602 lists exceptions, and § 1603 places the burden on the party seeking an exception to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Betts sued Sixty Lower East Side, LLC; Sixty Hotels, LLC; and Sixty Hotel Manager, LLC. She did not sue Iuori Astakhov, whom she alleged assaulted her. The defendants pleaded that any judgment should be reduced under § 1601. The court therefore explained that the jury could consider and apportion fault between the hotel defendants and Astakhov, which could affect both the defendants’ shares of damages and Betts’s recovery.
Earlier Liability Ruling
In an August 21, 2023 summary-judgment ruling, the court granted Betts’s motion in part. It found that the defendants violated New York Education Law § 7802 by failing to verify that Astakhov was authorized to perform massage therapy before engaging him, and that the violation was a legal cause of Betts’s injuries. The court denied Betts’s motion to the extent she claimed a violation of Education Law § 6512(2).
The court also accepted three arguments in the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment on liability: the defendants could not be held liable under a theory that an employer is responsible for an employee’s conduct; they could not be held liable under negligent-supervision or negligent-retention theories; and they had no common-law duty to conduct background checks of employees or independent contractors before engaging them. Those rulings were based on the undisputed record, including the absence of evidence that Astakhov had committed a prior criminal act or that the hotel had received complaints about him.
Arguments About the Statutory Exception
Betts’s recent submissions did not argue that she was unable, with due diligence, to obtain jurisdiction over Astakhov, which is the proviso in § 1601 that can prevent consideration of a nonparty’s culpable conduct. Instead, she relied on § 1602(7), which provides that § 1601 does not apply to a person held liable for causing an injury through reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Betts relied on the court’s use of the word “reckless” in its earlier discussion of the knowledge requirement under Education Law § 6512(2), as well as the appearance of “reckless disregard” in paragraph 6 of her complaint. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the earlier reference to “reckless” did not establish that the defendants acted recklessly for purposes of § 1602(7). The court had found only that the hotel routinely failed to verify massage therapists’ authorization and had separately found no evidence supporting the common-law negligence theories. The court also stated that negligence per se—a finding of negligence based on violation of a statute—was not equivalent to recklessness for purposes of the exception.
Timeliness and Result
The court held that Betts’s efforts on the eve of trial to treat the complaint’s reference to reckless disregard as sufficient, to deem the complaint amended, or to seek permission to amend a five-year-old complaint were untimely and futile. The court noted that the defendants had identified § 1601 in two affirmative defenses, including an express demand that any judgment be reduced under Article 16 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules.
The court concluded that § 1601 would apply at trial. It directed the parties to expect jury instructions and a verdict form consistent with this decision and the August 21, 2023 liability ruling. The court also directed the defendants’ attention to the second sentence of § 1603.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.