The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF #: Notice of Motion, Affirmation (Affidavit), and Exhibits Annexed 6-10 Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits Annexed 16-18 Reply Affirmation 19 DECISION AND ORDER In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants U-Haul International, Inc. (incorrectly sued herein as U-Haul International) and U-Haul Co. of New York and Vermont, Inc. (collectively, U-Haul), move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (1) and (7), dismissing the complaint as against them with prejudice. Plaintiff Assata Constant (plaintiff) opposes. Facts and Allegations Plaintiff’s father, Gilbert Constant (the decedent), passed away on March 30, 2020, in Brooklyn, New York (Complaint, 17).1 Following the decedent’s passing, plaintiff’s stepmother as his surviving spouse arranged with Andrew T. Cleckley Funeral Services, Inc. for his funeral services (id., 18). Thereafter, the decedent was transported to Andrew T. Cleckley Funeral Services, Inc. and/or Andrew T. Cleckley Funeral Home, Inc. and/or John Doe Funeral Homes (#1 through #10) (collectively, the Cleckley Funeral Home) (id., 19). On or about April 29, 2020, plaintiff presented to the Cleckley Funeral Home, to “inquire as to the whereabouts of the [d]ecedent’s body and/or remains at which time [its] employee(s) informed [p]laintiff that [the] same was unknown. At that time, said…employee(s) informed [p]laintiff that there was a ‘wait[]list’ for deceased bodies to be stored in ‘U-Haul trucks’ rented by [the] Cleckley Funeral [H]ome specifically for storage of the bodies” (id., 22). “On or about April 29, 2020, while lawfully on the Cleckley Funeral Home premises, [p]laintiff observed numerous exposed and decomposing bodies, including bodies stored in unrefrigerated ‘U-Haul trucks’” (id., 22). “[U]pon information and belief, the [d]ecedent was cremated at…Harleigh Cemetery & Crematory…at some unknown time” (id., 24). “To date, [p]laintiff is not in possession of her father['s] remains” (id., 26). On June 30, 2020, plaintiff brought this action against, among others, U-Haul alleging, as against it, causes of action sounding in negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Complaint, Counts VIII through X). The theory of plaintiff’s case, regardless of the label attached to it, is twofold. Firstly, plaintiff alleges that U-Haul owed a general duty to plaintiff and the public at large to ensure that its trucks were being rented for lawful purposes and not for purposes that would endanger the general welfare of the public (such as an illegal and improper storage of the decedent and other cadavers) (Complaint,
