Court Opinion

ID: 9959901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:11:45.294281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.369874
License: Public Domain

Pena v Valdes
               2024 NY Slip Op 31189(U)
                      April 8, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158954/2022
                 Judge: James G. Clynes
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.
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2024 04:26 P~                                                                  INDEX NO. 158954/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

                                  SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                            NEW YORK COUNTY
             PRESENT:           HON. JAMES G. CL YNES                                             PART                            22M
                                                                                   Justice
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X       INDEX NO.         158954/2022
             JOEL MATOS PENA,
                                                                                                                    09/18/2023,
                                                        Plaintiff,                                                  10/05/2023,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE       10/20/2023
                                                - V -
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.   001 002 003
             LINDIA 0. VALDES, MICHAEL T. DAVISON, DANIEL
             BRYANT 111, C BLACKBURN INC.
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                        Defendant.                                         MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
            15, 16, 17, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42, 57
            were read on this motion to/for                                                    JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
            24, 25,26, 27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33,49, 50, 51, 52,65,66,67, 68
            were read on this motion to/for                                                    JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
            48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,61, 62, 63,64
            were read on this motion to/for                                     SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

                     Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the motions by Defendant Michael T.
            Davison (Davison) for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims
            against him (Motion sequence no. 001); by Defendants Daniel Bryant III (Bryant) and C.
            Blackbum Inc. (Blackburn) for summary judgment on liability in their favor and dismissal of the
            complaint and all cross-claims against them (Motion sequence no. 002); and by Plaintiff for partial
            summary judgment on the issue ofliability in his favor and striking any and all affirmative defenses
            alleging contributory negligence, culpable conduct or assumption of the risk by plaintiff (Motion
            sequence no. 003) are consolidated and decided as follows:
                     Plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injury sustained as a result of a four-vehicle collision
            which occurred on the Major Deegan Expressway, Bronx, New York on November 20, 2019 at
            approximately 5:53 a.m. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that his vehicle was on the highway
            ramp prior to the collision and that he was injured as a result of the accident involving his vehicle

             158954(2022 PENA, JOEL MATOS vs. VALDES, LINDIA D. ET Al                                               Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002 003

                                                                         1 of 6
[* 1]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2024 04:26 P~                                                  INDEX NO. 158954/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            and the three vehicles operated by defendants Valdes, Davison and Bryant. Bryant drove a truck
            owned by Blackburn. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe injuries due to defendants' failure
            to keep a proper lookout in the direction which they were proceeding, failure to drive in a careful
            manner, failure to keep their vehicles under proper control, failure to provide a warning to plaintiff,
            failure to slow down in a timely manner, and failure to comply with New York traffic laws.
                   Davison is the first to move for summary judgment, arguing that there is no issue of fact
            as to his liability. His evidence includes the following: an affirmation from his counsel; a copy of
            a police accident report (Report); Davison's affidavit; a dashcam video of the accident provided
            by co-defendants Bryant and Blackburn; and a deposition transcript from plaintiff in a separate but
            related action (Valdes v C. Blackburn Inc., et al, Sup Ct., NY County, Index No. 15347/21).
                   Davison affirms that Valdes was the sole, proximate cause of the accident due to her
            negligence. The Report indicates that prior to the collision, plaintiff was on the ramp of the
            highway and Valdes' vehicle was behind his. Valdes suddenly shifted into the right lane, where
            Davison was driving. Davison then swerved into the middle lane, where Bryant was driving.
            Bryant hit Davison who hit Valdes who hit plaintiff on the ramp.
                   The video allegedly shows Valdes merging from the ramp directly into the right lane, when
            Davison failed to anticipate the shift. The deposition of plaintiff describes events prior to the
            impact he received from Valdes.
                   Davison contends that Valdes violated section 1128 (a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law
            (VTL), which provides as follows:
                   "A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall
            not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made
            with safety."
                   Davison argues that Valdes violated this statute when she improperly merged into traffic
            when it was unsafe to do so. He contends that the other defendants, who failed to anticipate her
            conduct and were unable to respond in a reasonable manner, were not negligent. Therefore,
            Davison seeks dismissal via the granting of his motion.
                   This motion is opposed by Valdes and plaintiff. Valdes opposes the motion because it is
           . premature, as no discovery has been scheduled which would provide more information as to the
            causes of the accident. Valdes argues that the evidence is either improper or insufficient to
            establish a case for summary judgment. First, Valdes argues that Davison failed to include all the

             158954/2022 PENA, JOEL MATOS vs. VALDES, LINDIA D. ET AL                               Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002 003

[* 2]                                                       2 of 6
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2024 04:26 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 158954/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            relevant pleadings in a motion for summary judgment. Second, Valdes argues that the affidavit
            submitted was not certified according to New Yark law. Third, Valdes argues that there is no
            chain of custody in the handling of the subject video. Fourth, Valdes argues that the Report has
            not been certified. Fifth, Valdes argues that plaintiffs deposition transcript was not executed by
            plaintiff.
                    Plaintiff opposes the motion because it is premature, with the absence of discovery at this
            time. He also argues that the evidence submitted fails to prove conclusively that Davison is not
            liable for negligence. Plaintiff refers to his deposition testimony, which relates to the accident, but
            from the action commenced by Valdes, as plaintiff, against the other defendants in this action
            before this court. Plaintiff was a non-party in that action when he testified on February 17,
            2022. In his opposition papers, plaintiff states that his counsel was not present at that
            proceeding. He then avers that his testimony was not dispositive of the question of sole and
            proximate cause. At one point, plaintiff testified that Valdes came to him after the collision and
            blamed Davison for the accident. Plaintiff contends that a jury would have to determine which
            defendants' actions were the proximate cause of the accident.
                    Davison replies to Valdes. Davison submits a copy of Valdes' answer as part of the
            pleadings to his motion. He argues that there is no need for discovery and that Valdes failed to
            demonstrate that any additional evidence could be revealed through discovery. Davison contends
            that the video has been authenticated by Bryant, a witness to the accident. The video footage came
            from Bryant's truck. Davison argues that his affidavit was properly notarized. He admits that the
            Report was not certified, but there is other sufficient evidence to prove his position.
                    With respect to plaintiffs deposition testimony, Davison contends that while plaintiff did
            not execute the transcript, the reporter did. He argues that the transcript can be used as evidence
            if its accuracy is not challenged. Davison states that since Valdes did not challenge the accuracy
            of plaintiffs testimony, it is admissible for his motion.
                    "It is axiomatic that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted
            where there is any doubt as to the existence of factual issues" (Birnbaum v Hyman, 43 AD3d 374,
            375 [ l" Dept 2007]). 'The substantive law governing a case dictates what facts are material, and
            ' [o] nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
            probably preclude the entry of summary judgment [citation omitted]"' (People v Grasso,50 AD3d
            535, 545 [l" Dept 2008]). "To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must

             158954/2022 PENA, JOEL MATOS vs. VALDES, LINDIA D. ET AL                                 Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002 003

                                                            3 of 6
[* 3]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2024 04:26 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 158954/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            provide evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the direction of summary
            judgment in his or her favor [citation omitted]" (Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 114
            AD3d 75, 81 [l" Dept 2013 ]). "Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to
            submit proof in admissible form sufficient to create a question of fact requiring a trial" (id at 82).
                    In their opposition to Davison's motion for summary judgment, Valdes and plaintiff argue
            that granting the motion before discovery has been sought is premature. Uncovering relevant
            evidence that would provide further information as to the cause of the accident is said to be
            necessary in determining the degree of the parties' liability. Davison's reply is that sufficient proof
            has already been submitted to determine liability, and that opponents have not specified what
            relevant evidence is being exclusively concealed and needs exposure.
                    Davison included a copy of Valdes' answer with his reply papers, a pleading previously
            absent from his motion papers. His affidavit is valid, explaining his position regarding the events
            leading up to the collision, and properly notarized. He admits the Report was not certified.
                   The video footage is only ten seconds in length. The video shows Bryant driving the truck
            and apparently being rear-ended by Davison. There is no footage depicting Valdes shifting from
            the ramp area to the right lane or colliding into plaintiffs vehicle as alleged.
                   The deposition testimony was taken from the lawsuit brought by Valdes, where plaintiff
            was a non-party. That action has since been disposed, due to Valdes' failure to prosecute. As
            Davison argued, the transcript submitted was not signed by plaintiff, but since Valdes has not
            disputed plaintiffs accuracy, it is admissible in a motion for summary judgment (see Ortiz v Lynch,
            105 AD3d 584 [1st Dept 2013]). The court finds that the testimony is not conclusive as to the
            issue of sole proximate cause. Plaintiff, in his opposition, contends that Davison's interpretation
            of his testimony is inaccurate, though he does not repudiate anything he said.
                   Summary judgment is rarely granted in negligence actions unless there is no conflict at all
            in the evidence (see Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 475-6 [1979]). In this case, the major
            evidence, the video footage and plaintiffs deposition, is not sufficiently conclusive for summary
            judgment to be granted. There is a matter of possible contributory negligence, even though Valdes
            may be primarily liable. It would be premature to grant judgment prior to discovery.
                   The court shall deny Davison's motion for summary judgment.
                   The second motion for summary judgment is brought by Bryant and Blackburn. They raise
            the same arguments and rely on the same evidence as Davison does. They submit Bryant's

             158954/2022 PENA, JOEL MATOS vs. VALDES, LINDIA D. ET AL                               Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002 003

                                                            4 of 6
[* 4]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2024 04:26 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 158954/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            affidavit, the Report, the cam video in their possession, and plaintiffs deposition testimony. They
            conclude that Valdes was solely liable for the accident by making an unreasonable shift into the
            right lane, leading to the multi-vehicle collision. They argue that they should be dismissed as
            defendants in this case. Valdes and plaintiff oppose the motion on the same grounds as they oppose
            Davison's motion. Their replies to both parties are similar to Davison's reply.
                   On the same grounds as Davison's motion, this court shall deny their motion for summary
            judgment.
                   Plaintiff makes the third motion for summary judgment, partial judgment, which would
            absolve him of any liability in the accident. Plaintiff submits as evidence his affidavit and the
            Report, which is certified. He contends that he was stationary at the ramp area when Valdes'
            vehicle struck his vehicle. He argues that he did not contribute to the accident and was not
            negligent.
                   Valdes, Davison and Bryant and Blackburn oppose the motion. Valdes argues that the
            motion is premature in the absence of discovery. She also argues that the Report is inadmissible,
            and that plaintiff could be subject to comparative negligence. Davison argues that evidence
            indicates that only Valdes is liable in this accident. Bryant and Blackbum contend that plaintiff
            has not proven his lack of liability and their own liability in this accident.
                   The certified Report indicates that plaintiff did not move at the entrance ramp, waiting for
            the right moment to enter into the right lane. Valdes' vehicle, behind his vehicle, shifted into the
            right lane, leading to the collision. When Valdes hit plaintiff, plaintiff had remained in place,
            never making a move.
                   The evidence shows that plaintiff was cautious and wanted to avoid any inappropriate
            contact with other drivers. The court finds no evidence of negligence on his part. Accordingly, it
            IS

                   ORDERED that defendant Michael T. Davison's motion for summary judgment (Motion
            sequence no. 00 I) is denied; and it is further
                   ORDERED that defendants Daniel Bryant III and C. Blackburn Inc. 's motion for summary
            judgment (Motion sequence no. 002) is denied; and it is further
                   ORDERED that plaintiff Joel Matos Pena's motion for partial summary judgment on
            liability in favor of Plaintiff and dismissal of any affirmative defenses alleging contributory

             158954/2022 PENA, JOEL MATOS vs. VALDES, LINDIA 0. ET AL                              Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002 003

[* 5]                                                         5 of 6
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2024 04:26 P~                                                INDEX NO. 158954/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            negligence, comparative fault or assumption of the risk by plaintiff (Motion sequence no. 003) is
            granted; and it is further
                    ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision and
            Order upon all parties with notice of entry.
                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                     4/8/2024
                       DATE

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED          □ DENIED     GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

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

             158954/2022 PENA, JOEL MATOS vs. VALDES, LINOIA 0. ET AL                             Page 6 of6
             Motion No. 001 002 003

                                                            6 of 6
[* 6]