Aull v New York City Tr. Auth.

2024 NY Slip Op 32472(U)

July 22, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 160557/2016

Judge: Richard Tsai

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.
160557/2016 AULL, LISA ANN vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

Motion No. 004

Page 1 of 6

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 004) 76-105

were read on this motion for DISCOVERY .

In this action for personal injuries allegedly arising out of a sudden stop of a bus, 

plaintiff moves to strike defendants’ answer, because they failed to provide the 

discovery directed at a post-note of issue court appearance on October 10, 2023. 

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion cross-move for an order precluding plaintiff 

from offering testimony on the issue of damages, an order striking the note of issue, and 

an order compelling plaintiff to appear for further EBTs and IMEs. Plaintiff opposes 

defendants’ cross motion. 

BACKGROUND

In this action, plaintiff alleges that, on June 29, 2016, plaintiff was a passenger on 

a bus owned and operated by defendants, and she was injured when the bus came to 

an abrupt stop at the intersection of 23rd Street and 1st Avenue. 

Plaintiff allegedly suffered a traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficits, and 

injuries to her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, among other injuries (see

defendants’ Exhibit E, bill of particulars ¶ 10 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 92]). It is undisputed 

that plaintiff was examined by defendants’ neuropsychologist to assess, among other 

things, any cognitive impairment resulting from the alleged traumatic brain injury. 

On August 22, 2019, plaintiff filed the note of issue and certified that all discovery 

was completed, including "physical examinations completed" and "medical reports 

exchanged" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 54), but it is undisputed that defendants had not 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. RICHARD TSAI PART 21

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 160557/2016

 MOTION DATE 12/21/2023

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 004

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

LISA ANN AULL,

 Plaintiff, 

- v -

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MTA 

BUS COMPANY and JOHN DOE (NAME BEING 

FICTITIOUS AND INTENDED TO BE THE OPERATOR OF 

THE SUBJECT BUS),

 Defendants. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 160557/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2024

1 of 6 [* 1]
160557/2016 AULL, LISA ANN vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

Motion No. 004

Page 2 of 6

exchanged their medical reports. Neither did defendants move to vacate the note of 

issue. 

According to defendants’ counsel, an ISO Claims search revealed that plaintiff 

was involved in other accidents which allegedly occurred in 2007, 2015, 2017, and 2018 

(i.e., before and after the date of the incident in this case) where plaintiff allegedly 

injured the same body parts (affirmation of defendants’ counsel ¶ 11). On July 26, 

2021—almost two years after plaintiff had filed the note of issue, defendants’ counsel 

sent a Supplemental Demand for Discovery for authorizations and document demands 

for those other incidents (see defendants’ Exhibit H [NYSCEF No. 95]). 

Meanwhile, according to plaintiff’s counsel, plaintiff appeared for IMEs on June 

21, 2022 with Dr. Krellman and on September 22, 2022 with Dr. Weitzner (affirmation of 

plaintiff’s counsel ¶ 6). 

According to the Supreme Court’s records, an appearance was scheduled in Part 

40 on October 10, 2023 at 2:30 p.m., which was adjourned to February 22, 2024.

Meanwhile, on November 2, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to defendants’

counsel, stating:

"As you are aware, on October 10, 2023, Judge Adam Silvera directed 

you to provide my office with your IME reports, a Discovery Demand 

requesting any medical authorizations that you believe that you are 

entitled to, and the ISO report that your demand is based upon.

Furthermore, we are entitled to the raw data obtained by the 

neuropsychologist, so kindly include that in your exchange. In this regard, 

enclosed please find a copy of Plaintiff’s Demand for Discovery and 

Inspection dated November 2, 2023" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 72).

On or about November 15, 2023, defendants’ counsel served a demand for 

discovery and inspection, dated November 15, 2023, which demanded, among other 

things, authorizations from a list of providers (see defendants’ Exhibit H [NYSCEF Doc. 

No. 95]). On February 9, 2024, plaintiff served a response which purportedly provided 

the authorizations and responded to defendants’ demands (see plaintiff’s Exhibit A to 

affirmation of plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to cross motion and in further support of 

motion [NYSCEF Doc. No. 99]). 

Plaintiff now moves to strike defendants’ answer because defendants failed to 

provide the discovery directed on October 10, 2023. Defendants cross-moved for an 

order precluding plaintiff from offering testimony on the issue of damages, an order 

striking the note of issue, and an order compelling plaintiff to appear for further EBTs 

and IMEs.

On July 11, 2024, this court held a motion conference with the parties’ counsel. 

INDEX NO. 160557/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2024

2 of 6 [* 2]
160557/2016 AULL, LISA ANN vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

Motion No. 004

Page 3 of 6

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer

Plaintiff moves to strike defendants’ answer due to their failure to comply with 

Justice Silvera’s directive and with plaintiff’s demand for discovery and inspection dated 

November 2, 2023 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 73). 

Defendants do not dispute that IME reports have not been provided. Rather, 

defendants’ counsel argues that the reports from Dr. Krellerman and Dr. Weitzner were 

not exchanged because these doctors were waiting to review medical records for which 

plaintiff had not yet provided any authorizations (see affirmation of defendants’ counsel 

¶¶ 2-4).

To the extent that plaintiff seeks a sanction for non-compliance with Justice 

Silvera’s directive, it appears that the directive was oral, as there was no copy of any 

written order or transcript of the directive that was submitted with plaintiff’s motion. 

However, orders must be reduced to a signed writing (CPLR 2219; Charalabidis v 

Elnagar, 188 AD3d 44, 47 [2d Dept 2020]), and an order becomes effective on the date 

of entry (Foley v Fitzpatrick Container Co., 267 AD2d 637, 638 [3d Dept 1999]). 

Defendants cannot be sanctioned for the failure to comply with an order that was never 

issued (see 6 Carmody-Wait 2d § 36:107 [“an oral directive from the court cannot 

furnish the basis for a preclusion order”]). 

To the extent that plaintiff seeks a sanction for defendants’ failure to comply with 

the post-note of issue discovery demand, “plaintiff waived his right to seek discovery 

sanctions under CPLR 3126 by filing the note of issue and certifying that all discovery 

was complete without reserving any rights or objections” (Flowers v 73rd Townhouse, 

LLC, 227 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2024]). 

Notwithstanding the above, the court grants plaintiff’s application to compel 

defendants to provide their IMEs reports and produce the “raw data” from plaintiff’s 

neuropsychological examination—i.e., the plaintiff’s responses to any cognitive tests

and any other tests administered during the neuropsychological examination (M.A. v 

Spring, 221 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2023]; Drago v Tishman Const. Corp. of New York, 4 

Misc 3d 354, 357 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004]). The order is necessary to prevent 

substantial prejudice to plaintiff at trial due to any surprise. Defendants are directed to 

provide the IME reports along with the raw data to plaintiff within 30 days. Defendants’ 

failure to comply may be raised as an application before the assigned trial judge for 

preclusion of the testimony of defendants’ neuropsychological expert, and any other 

experts whose IME report was not exchanged. 

INDEX NO. 160557/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2024

3 of 6 [* 3]
160557/2016 AULL, LISA ANN vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

Motion No. 004

Page 4 of 6

Defendants’ Cross Motion for an Order of Preclusion and other related relief

Defendants cross-move for an order precluding plaintiff from offering testimony 

on the issue of damages, an order striking the note of issue, and an order compelling 

plaintiff to appear for further EBTs and IMEs.

The branch of defendants’ cross motion to vacate the note of issue is denied. 

Defendants failed to timely move to vacate the note of issue, and defendants 

have not demonstrated unusual or unanticipated circumstances to warrant additional 

discovery. The discovery sought arose from an ISO search which defendants could 

have easily conducted before the note of issue of was filed in 2019. Defendants’ 

counsel offers no explanation why a demand based on the search was made two years

after the note of issue was filed. Vacating the note of issue would reward defendants’

lack of diligence and delay the trial. 

The branch of defendants’ motion for an order of preclusion is denied. 

Defendants seek to preclude plaintiff from offering testimony on the issue of 

damages because plaintiff did not provide, among other things, authorizations for the 

release of medical records from various providers, set forth in defendants’ demand for 

discovery and inspection dated November 15, 2023 (see defendants’ Exhibit H 

[NYSCEF Doc. No. 95]). At the motion conference on July 11, 2024, it was undisputed 

that plaintiff had provided authorizations for the providers which defendants demanded, 

but the authorizations were limited in time period from the date of the incident in this 

action going forward, which would therefore be inadequate for the release of records of 

prior treatment to the body parts allegedly injured on June 29, 2016. 

Thus, plaintiff’s counsel agreed: (1) to provide unrestricted authorizations for 

McAlister’s entire record and courtesy copies of the record within 14 days; and (2) to 

provide unrestricted authorizations for all providers contained in defendants’ demand for 

discovery and inspection dated November 15, 2023, regarding all prior treatment 

records within 14 days. Thus, plaintiff and defendants have partially resolved the basis 

for the branch of defendants’ motion seeking an order of preclusion. 

The branch of defendants’ motion for an order compelling plaintiff to provide 

discovery is therefore denied. 

The remaining discovery sought which was not resolved involves the issue of 

whether plaintiff should be compelled to appear for an additional EBT or IMEs.

“Generally, the failure to move to vacate a note of issue and certificate of 

readiness within 20 days of service constitutes a waiver of the right to 

conduct a subsequent physical examination, absent a showing of special 

circumstances or adequate reason for the delay. Nevertheless, in certain 

INDEX NO. 160557/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2024

4 of 6 [* 4]
160557/2016 AULL, LISA ANN vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

Motion No. 004

Page 5 of 6

circumstances where no prejudice would result, a party may be relieved of 

its waiver” (Dominguez v Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Operating 

Auth., 168 AD2d 376, 376 [1st Dept 1990] [internal citation omitted]). 

On this record, defendants have not demonstrated that they should be relieved of 

the waiver of any right to conduct an additional EBT or IMEs. First, it is not known at this 

time whether defendants would, in fact, learn of any new information from the

forthcoming medical records that would actually merit a further EBT or additional IMEs. 

Second, defendants have not demonstrated that plaintiff would not be prejudiced. 

In this court’s view, the fact that additional medical records have yet to be 

received from plaintiff’s providers does not, in itself, justify an additional IMEs. The 

possibility that Dr. Krellerman and Dr. Weitzner might want to conduct an additional IME

is not sufficient to order plaintiff to appear for additional IMEs at this time. Inasmuch as 

no reports have been exchanged, it is equally plausible that Dr. Krellerman and Dr. 

Weitzner could take into account the additional information and their own observations 

of plaintiff from the examination in formulating their conclusions. 

Similarly, that defendants’ counsel could learn of something in the additional 

medical records to ask plaintiff at an EBT is speculative. 

Finally, according to the Supreme Court’s case management records, this matter 

is scheduled for an appearance in Part 40 on September 12, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. This 

court has informed the parties’ counsel that because the note of issue is not vacated, it 

is possible that the records from the authorizations that plaintiff will provide in 14 days 

will not be received before the parties might have to proceed to trial. No adjournment or 

the stay of the trial is granted here due to the outstanding discovery.

Additionally, it is possible that the trial judge could preclude defendants’ experts 

because no IME reports were exchanged (see Scannapieco v New York City Tr. Auth., 

200 AD2d 410, 413 [1st Dept 1994]). Thus, should defendants decide to wait to 

exchange IME reports until receipt of any additional medical records, that decision 

would be made at defendants’ peril. 

CONCLUSION

Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike 

defendants’ answer due to their failure to comply with an oral directive to provide 

discovery is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that defendants are directed to provide all IME reports and the “raw 

data” from the neuropsychological examination (i.e., the plaintiff’s responses to any 

cognitive tests and any other tests administered during the neuropsychological 

examination) within 30 days; and it is further

INDEX NO. 160557/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2024

5 of 6 [* 5]
160557/2016 AULL, LISA ANN vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

Motion No. 004

Page 6 of 6

ORDERED that defendants’ cross motion an order precluding plaintiff from 

offering testimony on the issue of damages, an order striking the note of issue, and an 

order compelling plaintiff to appear for further EBTs and IMEs is DENIED. 

7/22/2024

DATE RICHARD TSAI, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

MOTION GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

CROSS MOTION GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 160557/2016

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2024

6 of 6 [* 6]