Court Opinion

ID: 9945558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:51.509914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:32.049135
License: Public Domain

Celik v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 30528(U)
                    February 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 151235/2014
                  Judge: Hasa A. Kingo
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.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 151235/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:                             HON. HASA A. KINGO                               PART                             05M
                                                            Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          151235/2014
             GULNAR CELIK, KADIR BENJAMIN CELIK
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         10/13/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 - V -

             THE CITY OF NEW YORK,                                                                  DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
            40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54
            were read on this motion to                                                           EXTEND - TIME

                      Upon the forgoing documents, plaintiffs Gulnar Celik and Kadir Benjamin Celik

            ("Plaintiffs") move pursuant to CPLR § 2004 to extend their time to file the note of issue.

            Defendant the City of New York ("Defendant") opposes. Upon review of the motion papers,

            procedural history, and following oral argument held on February 20, 2024, the motion is denied.

                                                                        Background
                      On February 11, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a summons and

            complaint to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Gulnar Celik ("Gulnar") when

            she was caused to trip and fall over a metal police barricade/barrier and injure herself while

            lawfully traversing westward along the street/sidewalk on the south side of West 48th Street,

            between 64 West 48th Street and the Southeast comer of West 48th Street and 6th Avenue, New

            York, New York. Issue was joined on February 25, 2015 with service of Defendant's answer. The

            parties then engaged in discovery practice.

             151235/2014 CELIK, GULNAR vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                           Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 002

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 151235/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                   On April 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Defendant's answer pursuant to CPLR

            § 3126, and pursuant to CPLR § 2004, to extend the time to file the note of issue due to Defendant's

            failure to respond to Plaintiffs' Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated December 13, 2022

            (Motion seq. 001, NYSCEF doc nos. 13-34). In relevant part, the December 13, 2022,demand

            sought production of the following:

                      1. Any and all records of a list of the employees assigned to the barrier services
                         unit as of November 28, 2012.
                      2. Any and all records in defendant's possession, custody and/or control
                         regarding any and all lawsuits involving trips and/or falls over any type of
                         NYPD barriers prior to November 28, 2012.
                      3. Any and all diagrams and/or maps and/or drawings, other than those
                         contained in the placement sheets that specifically depict where the barriers
                         are to be placed.
                   By order and decision dated August 14, 2023, the court denied the motion to strike and

            granted the motion to extend the time to file the note of issue (Order, J. Kim, NYSCEF Doc No

            32). With respect to the December 13, 2022 demand, the court held that Defendant had "responded

            to the discovery demands as directed and has properly objected to them" (id. at 2). Plaintiffs' time

            to file the note of issue was extended to October 1, 2023.

                   On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion to again extend the time to file the note

            of issue. Plaintiffs argue that an extension is warranted because Defendant has not produced

            documents responsive their December 13, 2022 demand for "records regarding any and all lawsuits

            involving trips and/or falls over any type ofNYPD barriers prior to November 28, 2012" or "[a]ny

            and all diagrams and/or maps and/or drawings, other than those contained in the placement sheets

            that specifically depict where the barriers are to be placed," and did not respond to an April 4, 2022

            demand for "[d]ocuments indicating how many different types of crowd control barricades does

            [sic] Defendant, CITY OF NEW YORK, have, with photographs of each type" and "[d]ocuments

            reflecting who and/or how the decision is made which type of crowd control barricade is used for
             151235/2014 CELIK, GULNAR vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                         Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                              2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 151235/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            each event in general, and with regards to the subject accident in particular." Plaintiff seeks to

            extend the time to file the note of issue until they have perfected an appeal of the court's August

            14, 2023 order and until a decision on the appeal is issued by the Appellate Division, First

            Department. Defendant opposes the motion and argues that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good

            cause for a second extension of the time to file the note of issue.

                                                         Discussion
                   Pursuant to CPLR § 2004, the court may "extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order

            for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the

            application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed." Here, Plaintiffs

            have failed to demonstrate good cause for a second extension of the time to file the note of issue.

            At the outset, Plaintiffs' motion is untimely because it was not filed until October 13, 2023, thirteen

            days after the October 1, 2023 deadline to file the note of issue that was set forth in the court's

            August 14, 2023 order. Moreover, the court held in its August 14, 2023 that Defendant had

            "responded to the discovery demands as directed and has properly objected to them." This is law

            of the case (see Glynwill Invs., NV v Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 216 AD2d 78, 79 [1st Dept

            1995]). With respect to these demands, Plaintiffs' motion is tantamount to an untimely motion to

            reargue the court's prior decision (CPLR § Rule 2221 (d) ["A motion for leave to reargue [ 1] shall

            be identified as such ... and; [3] shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the

            order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry.") Plaintiffs' request for a stay

            pending appeal of this decision would be more appropriately made to the Appellate Division, First

            Department, and is denied.

                   To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to compel production of documents demanded in its April

            4, 2022 demand, no explanation is offered regarding why this issue was not raised on the prior

             151235/2014 CELIK, GULNAR vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                         Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                              3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 151235/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            motion. Furthermore, Defendant has demonstrated that it responded to the demands with

            appropriate objections and produced a witness for deposition with knowledge of information

            responsive to the demand. Therefore, the motion is denied in its entirety and Plaintiff is directed

            to file the note of issue and certificate of readiness no later than February 23, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.

            Failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the automatic dismissal of the complaint

            (see Heredia v Two Kings, Inc., 4 AD3d 153 [1st Dept 2004]).

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that the motion for an extension of time to file the note of issue is denied; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that the Plaintiffs shall file the note of issue and certificate of readiness no later

            than February 23, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a settlement conference before the

            court on February 27, 2024 at 11:30 AM; and it is further

                    ORDERED that individuals with settlement authority are directed to be present at the

            settlement conference; and it is further

                    ORDERED that failure to timely file the note of issue and certificate of readiness as set

            forth herein shall result in automatic dismissal of the complaint.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court

                     2/20/2024
                       DATE                                                         HASAA. KIN

                                     ~
             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

             151235/2014 CELIK, GULNAR vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                          Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                              4 of 4
[* 4]