Hernandez v. Laundress, LLC

Hernandez v Laundress, LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 30731(U)

February 26, 2026

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 158697/2023

Judge: Dakota D. Ramseur

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1586972023.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/11/2026 3:45:50 PM]

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2026 10:26 AM! INDEX NO. 158697/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. DAKOTA D. RAMSEUR PART 34M

Justice

------------------,----------------------X

INDEX NO. 158697/2023

SUZANNE HERNANDEZ, DANIEL HERNANDEZ

MOTION DATE 01/05/2024

Plaintiff,

MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __.;:_00-=-=2=-----

- V -

THE LAUNDRESS, LLC,THE LAUNDRESS LLC D/B/A THE

DECISION + ORDER ON

LAUNDRESS,

MOTION

Defendant.

----------------------------------,---------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,

32

were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

On September 1, 2023, plaintiffs Suzanne Hernandez (hereinafter "Ms. Hernandez") and

Daniel Hernandez commenced the instant personal injury and products liability action against

defendants The Laundress, LLC and The Laundress LLC d/b/a The Laundress (collectively the

"defendants"). In this motion sequence (002), defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' amended

verified complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7). They argue, first, that plaintiffs have failed to

adequately allege a causal connection between their product-Darks Detergent-and plaintiffs'

injuries, which, if true, would be fatal to each of plaintiffs' causes of action; second, they argue

that plaintiff's claims-for negligent defective design, breach of implied warranty of

merchantability, and punitive damages-are each defectively pied for particularized reasons.

Plaintiffs have interposed an opposition (NYSCEF doc. no. 24, Plaintiffs' affidavit in

opposition). For the following reasons, the motion is denied in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that over a period of three years, between

2019 and 2022, Ms. Hernandez regularly purchased products by The Laundress, a company that

offers, among other things, non-toxic and eco-friendly laundry cleaning products, including the

Darks Detergent brand. (NYSCEF doc. no. 13 at ,r,r 5, 7, amended complaint.) Plaintiffs further

allege that in or around early May 2022, Ms. Hernandez used Darks Detergent (lot/UPC no.

85967500123, batch no. 2015) when machine-washing her laundry and hand-washing a cloth

face mask, at which time the detergent came into contact with her eye. (Id. at ,r,r 8, 9-11.) After

this, on or about May 10, 2022, Ms. Hernandez began to suffer from issues with her right eye,

for which she received treatment from an ophthalmologist. (Id. at ,r,r 12-13.) Approximately two

months later, on or about July 21, 2022, her ophthalmologist collected an eye culture from Ms.

158697/2023 HERNANDEZ, SUZANNE ET AL vs. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC ET AL Page 1 of 5

Motion No. 002

[* 1] 1 of 5

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2026 10:26 AM! INDEX NO. 158697/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026

Hernandez, which tested positive for the presence of pseudomonas bacteria. (Id. at 1 15). Ms.

Hernandez underwent a dacryocystorhinostomy ("DCR") surgery to resolve the infection, which

caused bruising, swelling, and facial scaring. (Id. at 11 17-18.)

On November 17, 2022, The Laundress posted a safety notice on its website, and two

weeks later, on December 1, 2022, announced a voluntary recall of approximately eight million

products that were or may have been contaminated withpseudomonas. (Id. at 119.) In their

original complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the culture taken from Ms. Hernandez's eye was

positive for the same bacteria found in The Laundress' Darks Detergent, i.e., that both were

positive for pseudomonas aeruginosa, a specific species of the pseudomonas bacteria. (See

NYSCEF doc. no. 1 at 125.) However, in their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the

Darks Detergent and Ms. Hernandez's lab culture tested positive for pseudomonas (NYSCEF

doc. no. 13 at 115), a genus of bacteria that includes 140 or more distinct species like

aeruginosa. In other words, defendants argue that plaintiffs made their complaint more vague by

removing specific reference to the aeruginosa species of the bacteria once they realized that the

presence of pseudomonas aeruginosa was not detected in the Darks Detergent. (NYSCEF doc.

no. 23 at 8, defendants' memo of law.) As such, in defendants' view, without pleading which

specific species of pseudomonas caused her injuries, plaintiffs cannot plead proximate causation

beyond mere speculation.

With respect to plaintiffs' product liability claims for design defect, manufacturing

defect, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, they allege that the Darks

Detergent was "not reasonably safe" for its intended use, given that the product's design allowed

it to be contaminated with the pseudomonas bacteria and there are many "eco-friendly" non-

toxic detergents that exist in the market. By contrast, defendants contend that plaintiffs have not

sufficiently alleged facts from which one can infer that (1) the specific Darks Detergent batch

she used actually contained the pseudomonas bacteria she was infected with, and (2) a safer

alternative design was available and would have prevented her injuries. (NYSCEF doc. no. 23 at

10.)

DISCUSSION

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (7),

courts afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as

true, and give the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference. (Leon v Martinez, 84

NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; JF Capital Advisors, LLC v Lightstone Group, LLC, 25 NY3d 759, 764

[2015].) The court's inquiry is limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs

pleadings; accordingly, its only function is to determine whether the facts as alleged fit within a

cognizable legal theory. (JF Capital Advisors, 25 NY3d at 764; Skill Games, LLC v Brody, I

AD3d 247, 250 [1st Dept 2003].) As such, "[t]he question is whether the complaint adequately

allege[ s] facts giving rise to a cause of action, 'not whether it properly labels or artfully states

one."' (Sassi v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236 [2021] [internal citations

omitted], quoting Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 27 NY3d 46, 52 [2016].)

158697/2023 HERNANDEZ, SUZANNE ET AL vs. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC ET AL Page 2 of 5

Motion No. 002

2 of 5

[* 2]

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2026 10:26 AM! INDEX NO. 158697/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026

Whether Plaintiff has Adequately Pled Proximate Causation

Defendants maintain that, in failing to identify the species of pseudomonas present in Ms.

Hernandez's eye culture and that in the Darks Detergent product, "there cannot be a plausible

inference that The Laundress's product caused her infection" (NYSCEF doc. no. 23 at 9.) While

defendants are correct that claims consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity

are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (see Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009]),

plaintiffs have readily supplied sufficient facts from which one can conclude that Ms. Hernandez

was exposed to the pseudomonas bacterial infection through defendants' products. For example,

in her complaint, she (1) identifies the Darks Detergent lot and UPC number that she purchased,

(2) avers that the day after the detergent made contact with her eye, she started experiencing

symptoms in her eye, (3) explained that, after a period of two months, her ophthalmologist

diagnosed her condition as a bacterial infection that would require surgery, and (4) alleges that

defendants issued a recall of Darks Detergent, including of the product lot number that she had

purchased. Under New York's lenient notice pleading standard (see CPLR 3013), plaintiffs have

undoubtedly pled the proximate causation element in each of her causes of action with sufficient

factual detail to give defendants notice of the claim. 1 Defendants cite to Voss v Black & Decker

Jvffg., Co. (59 NY2d 102, 110 [1983]) and Becker v Shwartz (46 NY2d 401,410 [1978]) but

neither suggest that the level of detail provided by plaintiffs complaint is insufficient to support

the proximate cause element. The Court notes that defendants raise this same argument

specifically in the context plaintiffs claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability

under Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-314(1). For the same reasons described above,

namely, that plaintiffs have indeed pled facts that support the inference that Darks Detergent was

the source of Ms. Hernandez's bacterial infection, the Court finds this argument unavailing.

Plaintiffs Defective Design Claim

A defectively designed product is one which, "at the time it leaves the seller's hands, is in

a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably

dangerous for its intended use." (Voss, 59 NY2d at 107; Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp., 53 AD3d 80, 82 [1st Dept. 2008].) In turn, whether a product is "not reasonably safe" is

judged by looking to whether the reasonable person, if they knew of the alleged design defect at

the time of manufacture, would conclude that the utility of the product was outweighed by the

risk inherent in marking a product designed in that manner. (See Brown & Williamson, 53 AD3d

at 81.) In weighing the utility and risk of a product, factors to be considered, among others, the

utility to the public as a whole, the likelihood of injury to the consumer, the availability of a safer

design, and the price that would accompany the alternative design. (Voss, 59 NY2d at 109; MH

v Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., 156 AD3d 33, 36-37 [1st Dept 2017].) Here, defendants argue that

dismissal is warranted as plaintiffs have not alleged that the Dark Detergents could have been

designed differently before being put into the stream of commerce. This argument is

1

Defendants acknowledge that, on this motion to dismiss, the question of whether the strain of pseudomonas

bacteria present in her eye culture was different than the one detected in their product is immaterial. (See NYSCEF

doc. no. 23 at 9.) Moreover, defendants did not produce any evidence that the strain to which plaintiff tested positive

for was, in fact, different from that found in its Darks Detergents product. Defendants' assertion on this point is

made through an attorney's affidavit, which holds no evidentiary value on this motion.

1

The Court of Appeals has clarified that the standard applied in Voss applies both to strict liability and negligent

defective design causes of action. (Adams v Genie Industries, Inc., 14 NY3d 535,543 [2010]).

158697/2023 HERNANDEZ, SUZANNE ET AL vs. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC ET AL Page 3 of 5

Motion No. 002

[* 3] 3 of 5

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2026 10:26 AM! INDEX NO. 158697/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026

unpersuasive. Plaintiff has adequately pled that Darks Detergent-as evidence by defendants'

own recall due to a potential contamination-was "not reasonably safe." As plaintiffs argue,

given the potential for contamination, they have adequately alleged that the risk of marketing

Darks Detergent outweighs its utility as a common household product. This is especially true

given the apparent widespread availability of alternative, eco-friendly detergents that do not pose

a risk of bacterial contamination.

Plaintiff's Punitive Damages Claim

Punitive damages may be granted when the nature of a party's conduct displays a high

degree of moral culpability which manifests as the conscious disregard of the rights of other or

conduct that may constitute willful or wanton negligence or recklessness. (Home Ins. Co. v

American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 204 [ 1990].) Under New York law, punitive

damages may be awarded where the plaintiff's theory of liability is premised on negligence or

strict liability; however, "the injury must be shown to be emblematic of much more than an

individually sustained wrong. It must be down to reflect pervasive and grave misconduct

affecting the public generally to, in a sense, merge with a serious public grievance, and thus

merit punitive, indeed quasi-criminal sanction by the State." (Fabiano v Philip Morris Inc., 54

AD3d 146, 151 [1st Dept 2008] [internal citations omitted]; see Sciafani v Brother Jimmy's

BBQ, Inc., 88 AD3d 515, 567-568 [1st Dept 2011]). Here, the Court finds that plaintiffs have

adequately pled this claim. They allege that defendants had exclusive knowledge that Darks

Detergent, while marketed as "non-toxic" to the public, had been contaminated with the

pseudomonas bacteria and that defendants delayed notifying customers of this defect. (NYSCEF

doc. no. 13 at ,i 22, 27.) To this point, they allege that defendants failed to notify customers-

either when they first discovered the contamination and when they issued a recall-that it should

have known purchased products from tainted or contaminated batch numbers, i.e., customers

who directly bought products from their online website.

Loss of Consortium Claim

Since defendants are not entitled to dismissal of Ms. Hernandez's underlying claims,

dismissal is also inappropriate as to Mr. Hernandez's derivative loss of consortium claim.

The court has considered all other arguments and finds them to be unavailing or without

merit.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby,

ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) is denied in

its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that counsel for plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order, along with notice

of entry, on all parties within twenty (20) days.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

158697/2023 HERNANDEZ, SUZANNE ET AL vs. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC ET AL Page 4 of 5

Motion No. 002

4 of 5

[* 4]

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2026 10:26 AM! INDEX NO. 158697/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026

2/26/2026

DATE

~ §

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

158697/2023 HERNANDEZ, SUZANNE ET AL vs. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC ET AL Page 5 of 5

Motion No. 002

5 of 5

[* 5]