Court Opinion

ID: 9960304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 21:07:53.072785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:21.748334
License: Public Domain

Levin v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31226(U)
                     April 10, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152982/2019
                  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. 152982/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:                            HON. HASA A. KINGO                               PART                              05M
                                                           Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          152982/2019
             STEPHEN J LEVIN, LOURDES JIMENEZ LEVIN,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         01/26/2024
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 -v-
             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CONSOLIDATED EDISON,                                            DECISION ON MOTION -
             CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK INC                                            SUBMIT ORD / JGMT
                                                                                                        (AMENDED)
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
            36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      DISCOVERY                         .

                    This is an action to recover monetary damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained on
            March 13, 2018, by Plaintiff Steven Levin (“Plaintiff”), when he allegedly tripped and fell in the
            roadway of West 54th Street near its intersection with 7th Avenue here in the City and County of
            New York. Plaintiff allegedly fell over construction debris located in the roadway at the subject
            location. With the instant motion, Plaintiff and Plaintiff Lourdes Jimenez Levin (collectively
            “Plaintiffs”) seeks an order compelling Defendant Consolidated Edison company of New York,
            Inc. (“Con Ed”) and Defendant the City of New York (“City”) to produce records in response to a
            post-EBT demands and to produce additional witnesses to testify. Upon failure to produce the
            records requested by a date certain, Plaintiffs’ seek to automatically preclude Con Ed and the City
            from offering any testimony or evidence at trial or in support of or opposition to any dispositive
            motion.

                                                                      DISCUSSION

                     CPLR §3101(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all
            matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The terms “material and
            necessary” in this statute “must ‘be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any
            facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and
            reducing delay and prolixity’” (Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014], quoting Allen
            v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). At the same time, a party is "not entitled
            to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure" (Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 AD3d 998, 998
            [2d Dept 2011]; see Quinones v. 9 E. 69th St., LLC, 132 AD3d 750, 750 [2d Dept 2015]). “It is
            incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will
            result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
            information bearing on the claims” (Crazytown Furniture v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d
            420, 421 [2d Dept. 1989]; see Quinones, 132 AD3d at 750, supra).

             152982/2019 LEVIN, STEPHEN J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                       Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152982/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                    CPLR §3126 authorizes the imposition of disclosure sanctions, including the striking of a
            pleading, for a party's failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, especially where there is a
            clear showing that plaintiff's conduct is willful, contumacious or manifests bad faith (see Irizarry
            v Ashar Realty Corp., 14 AD3d 323 [1st Dept 2005]; Katz v Dream Trans, Inc., 11 AD3d 412 [1st
            Dept 2004]; Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182 [1st Dept 1996]).

                   Finally, pursuant to CPLR §3124 this court can, in its discretion, compel disclosure of
            information that a party fails to adequately respond to.

            Con Ed

                    Here, Plaintiffs’ motion must be denied in its entirety with respect to Con Ed. First, Con
            Ed has fully complied with the Case Scheduling Order (“CSO”) and all orders of this court, and is
            not required to provide the additional disclosures sought by Plaintiffs here. To be sure, Plaintiffs’
            Demand No. 2 demanded a “copy of all permits, permit applications, Notice(s) of Violation,
            Corrective Action Request, Inspection records, HIQA records for the roadway segment of West
            54th Street between 7th Avenue and 6th Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) for the period from
            March 8, 2018 to April 30, 2018.” Such a request is overly broad, as Plaintiffs’ demand a search
            for the entire block, even though the accident here is alleged to have occurred in the crosswalk
            near the corner of West 54th Street and 7th Avenue. Likewise, Con Ed has already complied with
            the CSO by searching for pertinent documents looking back two years from the date of the
            accident, including the period from March. 8, 2018 to the date of the accident, March 13, 2018.
            Plaintiffs also improperly seek post-accident records (i.e., March 14, 2018 to April 30, 2018) that
            are not discoverable (see Cook v. HMC Times Sq. Hotel, LLC, 112 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2013]).
            Despite Plaintiffs’ admission that non-party Verizon is responsible for the condition that caused
            the accident, in support of the underlying motion, Plaintiffs contend that post-accident records are
            needed to determine ownership and control of the instrumentality that caused Plaintiff’s accident.
            However, in point and fact, there is no issue of control over the condition that caused the accident.
            Plaintiffs have already admitted that the debris that caused the accident belonged to non-party
            Verizon. As such, requiring Con Ed to make further disclosures would be improper.

                    In addition, Plaintiffs’ Demand No. 3 seeks a “copy of all permits, permit applications,
            Notice(s) of Violation, Corrective Action Request, Inspection records, HIQA records for the
            sidewalk segment of West 54th Street between 7th Avenue and 6th Avenue (Avenue of the
            Americas) for the period from March 8, 2018 to April 30, 2018.” It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s
            accident occurred not on a sidewalk, but rather in the crosswalk of the roadway as he was crossing
            West 54th Street at the intersection of 7th Avenue. Therefore, any records related to the sidewalk
            are not material or necessary to the defense or prosecution of this action because the allegations in
            this case do not pertain to an alleged dangerous condition on the sidewalk and because, as noted,
            Plaintiffs have failed to proffer that Con Ed is not responsible for the condition that caused
            Plaintiff’s accident.

                    Plaintiffs’ Demand No. 4 seeks a “copy of all permits, notice(s) of violation, corrective
            action request, opening tickets, paving orders, emergency control system tickets, in possession of
            Consolidated Edison for the West 54th Street between 7th Avenue and 6th Avenue (Avenue of the

             152982/2019 LEVIN, STEPHEN J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                     Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152982/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            Americas) for the period from January 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018.” Plaintiffs’ Demand No. 5 seeks
            a “copy of all dispositions and/or resolutions of the Correction Action Requests and/or Notice(s)
            of Violation issued to Consolidated Edison pertaining to West 54th Street between 7th Avenue and
            6th Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) for the period from January 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018.”
            Plaintiffs’ Demand No. 8 seeks “copy of all inspection reports prepared by or on behalf of Con
            Edison pertaining to the compliance of Con Edison and/or its contractors with the specific
            stipulations contained in the permits issued by the Department of Transportation for the West 54th
            Street between 7th Avenue and 6th Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) for the period from January
            1, 2017 to April 30, 2018.”

                   Con Ed has properly objected to these demands. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ Demands Nos. 4, 5, and
            8 improperly seek records for the entire block, even though the accident occurred in the crosswalk
            near the corner of West 54th Street and 7th Avenue. Again, Plaintiff admits that the debris that
            caused his accident belonged to non-party Verizon. Plaintiffs’ Demands Nos. 6 and 7 are likewise
            improper as the debris in question belonged to non-party Verizon. As such, no amount of additional
            discovery from Con Edi is material or necessary in the prosecution or defense of this matter
            because Plaintiffs’ have failed to proffer that Con Ed is not responsible for the condition that
            caused Plaintiff’s accident.

                     Finally, Plaintiffs’ Demand No. 10 seeks a further deposition of Con Ed to interpret the
            records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Demands Nos. 2-8. A witness for Con Ed has already
            testified. In any event, Plaintiffs’ demand for a further witness is not a proper demand for a notice
            to produce, and, once again, no additional discovery or deposition testimony from Con Ed would
            be material because there is not, at the present time, a basis for which Plaintiffs could argue that
            “material and necessary” information could be gleaned from Con Ed, who appears to have had
            minimal or no established responsibility for the condition that caused Plaintiff’s accident.

                    Plaintiffs identify five permits and four notices of violation included in the City’s Response
            to the CSO that were not included in Con Ed’s response to the CSO. None of these permits or
            notices of violation is associated with the permit for the area where Plaintiff’s alleged the accident
            occurred. The notices of violation were issued for locations unrelated to Plaintiff’s accident. As
            the permits or notices of violation are not relevant as they do not relate to the location of the
            accident, Plaintiffs’ have failed to show that their disclosure is “material and necessary” to the
            prosecution of this action.

                   Finally, Con Ed has not acted willfully, contumaciously, or in bad faith with respect to the
            discovery related to the instant motion. Accordingly, the portions of Plaintiffs’ motion which seek
            to compel a further response from Con Ed and/or preclude Con Ed from offering testimony or
            evidence at trial in support of or in opposition to any dispositive motion are denied.

            The City

                    Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to the City is premised primarily on the contention that the
            City must produce records for the subject location after the accident occurrence, despite the alleged
            defect being a transient condition and beyond the scope of the CSO. As articulated in its opposition,
            the City has complied with its discovery obligations in this matter. Specifically, on December 14,

             152982/2019 LEVIN, STEPHEN J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                     Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 152982/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            2021, the City served its response to the CSO noting that Department of Transportation (“DOT”)
            records had been requested. Thereafter, the City Served a supplemental CSO response on July 21,
            2022, which contained the DOT records in compliance with the CSO for a 2-year search of the
            roadway located at West 54th Street between 7th Avenue and Avenue of the Americas aka 6th
            Avenue to include 6 ½ Avenue for the search period of March 13, 2016 to March 13, 2018. On
            September 8, 2023, the City served its Response to Plaintiffs’ Post-EBT demands, denying the
            production of street sign records, sidewalk records and subsequent accident permits, applications,
            NOVs, CARS and HIQA inspection records. In addition to the documents produced the City has
            produced a DOT witness for deposition.

                    It is undisputed here that Plaintiff allegedly fell on debris in the roadway located at West
            54th Street near its intersection with 7th Avenue. Plaintiffs’ post-EBT demand for sidewalk and
            sign records is not material and necessary to the defense or prosecution of the action. Additionally,
            no showing has been made for the applicability of this demand to the claims asserted in the matter.
            Plaintiffs’ application amounts to a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the actual claims
            alleged in this action. Further, Plaintiffs’ other demand of the City to produce DOT records
            subsequent to Plaintiff’s alleged accident is beyond the scope of the CSO. The City’s DOT records
            previously produced comply with the CSO. Specifically, the documents are for a 2-year search of
            the roadway located at West 54th Street between 7th Avenue and Avenue of the Americas aka 6th
            Avenue to include 6 ½ Avenue for the search period of March 13, 2016 to March 13, 2018.

                    Finally, Plaintiffs have made no showing that the City has acted willfully, contumaciously
            or in bad faith. The record shows that the City has acted in good faith, categorically undermining
            the imposition of preclusion or sanctions. Accordingly, is it hereby

                    ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a conference in the DCM part of the
            courthouse located at 80 Centre Street, first floor, on May 7, 2024 at 2:00 PM.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    4/10/2024
                      DATE                                                             HASA A. KINGO, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                    X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          X      DENIED       GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                         SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN           FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             152982/2019 LEVIN, STEPHEN J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                          Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                              4 of 4
[* 4]