Court Opinion

ID: 9958776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:33.21346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:51.984825
License: Public Domain

La Marca v MTA Bus Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31042(U)
                     March 28, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157473/2023
              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.
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157473/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                                SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                          NEW YORK COUNTY
          PRESENT:            HON. DENISE M DOMINGUEZ                                          PART                            35
                                                                                    Justice
          ·······-·······---------------·------H------------------*"·-·--------X
                                                                                               INDEX NO.         157473/2023
           JOIIN LA MARCA
                                                                                               MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _00_1_ __
                                                  Petitioner

                                               - V -
                                                                                                DECISION AND ORDER ON
           MTA BUS COMPANY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
                                                                                                       MOTION
           AUTHORITY

                                                  Respondents

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

          The follO\ving e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 8, I 0, 11, 12, 13, 14, l 5, I6,
          17, l 8, 19, 20
          were read on this motion to/for                                                      LEAVE TO FILE

                    For the reasons that follow, the Petition by Petitioner, John La Marca, seeking to serve a

          late notice of claim upon Respondents, MTA Bus Company and New Yark City Transit Authority

          (collectively Transit) is granted.

                                                                           Background

                    The incident giving rise to this application occurred on March 30, 2023, at or near the

          intersection of 127th Street and 18th A venue in Queens County. Petitioner alleges that in the course

          of his employment as a Department of Transportation (DOT) Assistant Highway Repair employee

          he sustained injuries because of Respondents' bus operator's negligence. More specifically,

          Petitioner alleges that the Transit bus operator failed to follow Petitioner's directions regarding not

          entering a dosed street and in do so struck a roadwork sign that became attached to the bottom of

          the bus. Petitioner further alleges that bus operator continued driving the bus while dragging the

          sign which struck Petitioner causing him to sustain serious injuries.

           15747312023 LA MARCA, JOHN vs. MTA BUS COMPANY ET AL                                                  Page 1 of 4
           Motion No. 001

           [* 1]
                                                                         1 of 4
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157473/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                    Petitioner now timely moves for an extension of time to serve a late notice of claim

          pursuant to General Municipal Law §50-e. The Petition also seeks to deem the late notice of claim

          previous filed as nunc pro tune, and to compel Respondents to turn over discovery.

                                                           Discussion

                    In deciding to grant or deny a timely application for an extension of time to serve a late

          notice of claim upon a public entity, courts must give great ,vcight to whether the public entity

          acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within ninety (90) days after the date the

          claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter (General Municipal Law §50-e [5]; sec Pierson v. City

          of New York, 56 NY2d 950 r1992_1 ).

                    Other enumerated key factors to consider include whether the movant provides a

          reasonable excuse for the delay in not timely serving the prerequisite notice of claim and a showing

          that granting the extension will not substantially prejudice the public entity in mounting a defense

          (General Municipal Law §50-e [51; see also Dubowy v. City ofNew York, 305 AD2d 320 [1 st Dept

          2003];Matter of Porcaro v. City (d'!v'ew York, 20 AD3d 357[1 st Dept 2005]). Yet the presence or

          absence of any one factor, except the factor that Respondents had knowledge of the facts of the

          claim within ninety (90) days, is not determinative or fatal to these application (see Dubowy,305

          AD2d 320; Matter of Porcaro, 20 AD3d 357).

                    What is paramount and necessary is assuring that public entities can timely investigate

          while the evidence is still fresh and available and thus mount defenses against meritorious tort

          claims while also assuring that individuals with legitimate claims are able to bring forth such

          claims (see Porcaro v City oflv'Y, 20 AD3d 357 [1 st Dept 2005J; Mauer of Orozco v City of NY,

         200 AD3d 5 59 [_1 st Dt;pt 2021).

           157473/2023 LA MARCA. JOHN vs. MTA BUS COMPANY ET AL                                  Page 2 of4
           Motion No. 001

            [* 2]
                                                         2 of 4
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157473/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                   Here, as to the delay, Petitioner alleges not knowing that serving a notice of claim was

         required. \1/hile ignorance of the law generally is not a reasonable excuse, Petitioner nonetheless

         submits sufficient evidence for this Court to conclude that Respondents had knowledge of the

         essential facts of Petitioner's claim (see Rodriguez v. ,Vew York Cily !lea/th & JloJps. Corp., 78

         AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2010]; Dubo11-y 305 A.D.2d 320).

                   To establish that Respondents had knowledge of the essential facts of Petitioner's claim,

         Petitioner among other evidence submits an affidavit of merit and TRANSIT's Supervisor's

         Accident/Incident Investigation Report. ln Petitioner's affidavit, he alleges how his injuries

         occurred and that TRANSIT immediately aft.er the accident investigated. In addition, TRANSIT's

          Supervisor's Accident/Incident Investigation Report includes the date, time, location, specific bus

         and operator, and a description of the accident including Petitioner's injuries (see Rao v.

          Tri borough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 223 AD2d 3 74 L1st Dept 1996:1). Although the report contains

         different versions of how the accident occurred and who is at fault, Petitioner's affidavit coupled

         with TRANSIT's own report is sufficient for the Court to find that Respondents had knowledge of

         the essential facts constituting a potential actionable wrong against Petitioner (see e.g. Clarke v.

          Veolia Transportation Servs., Inc., 204 AD3d 666 [2d Dept 20221; Alexander v. lVew York City

          Transit Auth., 200 AD3d 509 (1st Dept 2021; Matter of Orozco, 200 AD3d 559).

                   Whether Petitioner can ultimately succeed in a negligence action against Respondents is

          immaterial (sec Weiss v. City ofl'v'ew York, 237 AD2d 212 (1st Dept 1997]; Singh v. City of]Vew

          York, 165 AD3d 593 [1st Dept 20181; Porcaro 20 AD3d 3 57; Matter of Orozco, 200 AD3d 559).

          What is relevant is that Petitioner· s evidence is sufficient for this Court to find that Petitioner has

         a potentially legitimate claim and that Respondents had knowledge of the essential facts of the

          claim from the date it occurred providing Respondents with the ability to timely investigate and

           15747312023 LA MARCA, JOHN vs. MTA BUS COMPANY ET AL                                    Page 3 of 4
           Motion No. 001

           [* 3]
                                                          3 of 4
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157473/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

         mount a defense without prejudice (see Porcaro, 20 AD3d 357; Matter of Orozco, 200 AD3d 559).

         Accordingly, this branch of the Petition is granted.

                    As to the branch of the Petition seeking to have a notice of claim that was filed in July 2023

         deemed nunc pro lune, that is denied. The notice of claim was not in compliance with General

          Municipal Law §50-e as it was filed after ninety (90) days from the date the claim arose and

         Petitioner did not have leave of court to file it, making it a nullity (see General Municipal Law

          §50-e; AfcGarty v. City of NY, 44 AD3d 447[l5t Dept 2007]; Wollim v. lv'Y City Ed. of Educ., 8

         AD3d 30 11 st Dept 2004]). As to the branch of the Petition moving to compel Respondents to

         produce pre-action discovery that is denied as premature.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that this Petition seeking to serve a late notice of claim upon Respondents is

         granted; it is further

                    ORDERED that the branch of the Petition seeking to deem a late notice of claim filed

         without leave of court nunc pro tune is denied; it is further

                    ORDERED that that branch of the Petition seeking to compel pre-action discovery from

         the Respondents and to hold in abeyance of the resolution of this Petition until the Respondents

          have produced their investigation reports is denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that within 20 days from the entry of this order, the Petitioner shall serve a

         copy of this order with notice of entry upon all parties.

                    3/28/2024
                      DATE

                                                                       ~
           CHECK ONE:                     CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART

           APPLICATION:                   SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

           CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:          INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE
           157473/2023 LA MARCA, JOHN vs. MTA BUS COMPANY ET AL                                      Page 4 of 4
           Motion No. 001

            [* 4]
                                                            4 of 4