Court Opinion

ID: 9958689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:06.896319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:34.587970
License: Public Domain

Cook v New York City Tr. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31151(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 450720/2021
              Judge: Denise M. Dominguez
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 04/05/2024 04:59 P~                                                                    INDEX NO. 450720/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                        NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:          HON. DENISE M DOMINGUEZ                                              PART                35
                                                                                       Justice
           ······--------------------------------------·------------·----------------·---------X

             MICllAEL COOK,                                                                        INDEX NO.                450720/202 l

                                                    Plaintiff                                      MOTION SEQ. NO.            005,006

             NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, METROPOLITAN
             TRANSPORTAT!Ol\ AUTHORITY, MTA BUS COMPANY,                                           DECISION AND ORDER ON
             MAI\HATTAI\ AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT                                                        MOTION
             OPERATll\'G AUTHORITY, EDWARD D. DOUCE, VICTOR
             M. BORREL, EMMANUEL BORREL-VARGAS

                                                   Defendants

           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
            The following c-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 132, 133, 134, l 35, 136, 137,

                                                                                                                                              I
            138,149,151,152,159, 164
            were read on this motion to/for                                         REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERA TION
                                                                                                           -----

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) l 43, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150,
            153, !54, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163
            were read on this motion to/for                                         REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERA_T_I---=O...::...N_ __

                     For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff, Micheal Cook's (COOK) motion (Motion Seq. 5) and

           Defendants Victor M. Borre! (BORR.EL) and Emmanuel Borrel-Vargas' (VARGAS) motion

           (Motion Seq. 6), seeking reargumcnt of this Court's decision is granted.

                                                                            Background

                    This personal injury matter arises out a collision between a public bus operated by bus

           driver, Defendant Edward D. Douce (DOUCE), and a motor vehicle owned by BORR.EL and

           operated by VARGAS. COOK, a passenger on the public bus, alleges that on June 13, 2019, at or

           near the intersection of West 125th Street and Amsterdam Avenue in Manhattan, he was injured

           as result of the accident when the bus operator stopped short and pressed on the brakes without

           450720/2021 COOK, MICHAEL vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET Al
                                                                                                                         Page 1 of 4
           Motion No. 005 and 006

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/05/2024 04:59 P~                                             INDEX NO. 450720/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           warning. COOK then commenced a negligence action against Defendants, New York City Transit

           Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA Bus Company, Manhattan and Bronx

           Surface Transit Operating Authority, and bus operator Edward D. Douce (TRANSIT), BORREL

           and VARGAS.

                   Post note of issue, TRANS TT moved for summary judgment. By Order of this Court, dated

             ovember 9, 2023, TRANSIT' s summary judgment motion (Motion Seq. 4) was granted. That

           Order also granted COO K's motion for summary judgment as to liability solely against Defendants

           BORR.EL and VARGAS, as COOK was deemed an innocent passenger free of any contributory

           negligence.

                   COOK now moves for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 asserting that questions of fact

           were overlooked regarding TRANSIT's liability and relies upon a previously submitted TR.A SIT

           investigative memorandum. Defendants BORREL And VARGAS also move pursuant to CPLR

           2221 for reargument and rely in principle upon COOK's arguments. TRANSIT opposes.

                                                             Discussion

                   In considering a timely motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221, this Court may

           grant such application upon a showing that it overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law

           or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision (see CPLR 222Ird][2]; William P.

           Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 AD2d 22 [1 st Dept 1992]).

                   Here, the mo van ts timely move for reargument. Specifically, the movants highlight that

           TR.A Sl"I 's memorandum concludes that multiple factors contributed to the collision including

           Defendant's VARGAS actions but also that their own bus driver should have applied better

           defensive driving skills.   In opposition, TRANSIT argues that this internal memo cannot be

           considered for purposes of TRANSIT's liability since it is based on internal rules, regulations,

           450720/2021 COOK, MICHAEL vs . NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL
           Motion No. 005 and 006                                                                Page 2 of4

[* 2]                                                      2 of 4
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/05/2024 04:59 P~                                               INDEX NO. 450720/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           guideline, protocols, policy practices or procedures that hold TRANSIT employees to a higher

           standard of care than common law.

                  Upon reconsideration, this Court concludes again that TRANSIT's evidence, primarily the

           authenticated video, establishes that VARGAS's driving caused the accident hy crossing in front

           of the bus when the light was green. Further, based on the police report VARGAS admits guilt.

           Consequently, VARGAS' actions created the situation that caused bus driver DOUCE to suddenly

           apply the brakes and cause COOK's injuries, making the emergency doctrine applicable and

           DOUCE's actions reasonable to prevent a full-on collision with BORR.EL 's vehicle.

                  However, upon further reconsideration, this Court now concludes that the memorandum                    I
           raises a question of fact better suited for a trier of fact to decide- \-vhether TRANSIT contributed

           at all to the accident (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Here the memo was

           prepared approximately eight (8) days after the accident and was based on TRANSIT's own

           investigation conducted on the same day of the accident. Unlike other general policies and

           protocols by TRANSIT that hold their employees to a higher standard than common law

           negligence, this investigative memo was prepared specifically because of this accident. Further,

           the preparer of the memo, a TRANSIT employee, also considered the bus video and the statements

           given by the drivers. The memo concluded that multiple factors led to the accident, including that

           DOUCE "failed to employ all the necessary defensive driving skills to avoid the collision"

                  Accordingly, while it is evident that VARGAS caused the accident, the preparer of the

           memo was not deposed, and the direct and cross-examination of this witnesses is necessary to

           eliminate all questions of fact as to any liability by TRANSIT.

                  It is therefore,

           450720/2021 COOK, MICHAEL vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL
           Motion No. 005 and 006                                                                   Page 3 of 4

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/05/2024 04:59 P~                                                     INDEX NO. 450720/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                     ORDERED that Plaintiff COOK's motion to reargue (Motion Seq. 3) and Defendants

           VICTOR M. BORREL and EMMANUEL BORREL-VARGAS' motion to reargue (Motion Seq.

           4), pursuant to CPLR 2221 are granted; and it is further

                    ORDERED that Plaintiff COOK's summary judgment motion as to liability as an innocent

           passenger is granted as to all Defendants; and it is further

                    ORDERED that TRANSI T 's swnmary judgment motion that was previously granted is

           no\V denied ; and it is further

                    ORDE RED that within 20 days from the entry of this Order, Plaintiff COOK and

           Defendants BORREL and VARGAS shall serve a copy of this Order with notice of entry upon all

           parties and the Clerk of the Court in accordance with electronic filing.

                     4/512024
                                                                                          4
                                                                                                  (
                       DATE                                                       DENISE M DOMINGUEZ, J.S.C.

             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       □ REFERENCE

            450720/2021 COOK, MICHAEL vs. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL
            Motion No. 005 and 006                                                                       Page 4 of 4

                                                               4 of 4
[* 4]