Court Opinion

ID: 9958738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:23.19741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.876404
License: Public Domain

New York City Tr. Auth. v Progressive Ins. Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31076(U)
                      April 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 450329/2023
              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.
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:13 P~                                                                    INDEX NO. 450329/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRF.Sl<:NT:          HON. DENISE M DOMINGUEZ                                            PART                           35M
                                                                                        Ju.\'fice
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X     INDEX NO.         450329/2023
             NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, MTA BUS
             COMPANY, MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE                                                   MOTION SEQ. ~O.       001
             TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, METROPOLITAN
             TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, KEITH JOSEPH

                                                     Petitioners

                                                 - V -
                                                                                                    DECISION AND ORDER ON
                                                                                                           MOTION
             PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARMON LINDER
             AND ROGOWSKY, MARIE MARSEILLE,

                                                     Respondents
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by l\'YSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
            were read on this motion to/for                                                          CONTEMPT

                      Petitioners (collectively TRANSIT), move by Order to Show Cause pursuant to CPLR

            3101, CPLR 3124, CPLR 2308, Judiciary Law 753, Judiciary Law 754, Judiciary Law 756 and

            Judiciary Law 773 for an order holding (1) Respondent PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE

            COMPANY (PROGRESSIVE) in contempt, (2) awarding TRANSIT damages to be determined

            at a future date, and (3) compcl!ing PROGRESIVE to comply with the subpoenas duces tecum

            previously served.

                      for the reasons that follow and upon hearing oral arguments, this Order to Show Cause is

            granted in part as to PROGRESSIVE.

                                                                              Background

                      Following a motor vehicle accident on July 23, 2017, at 8th Avenue near West 46th Street

            m Manhattan, Respondent MARIE MARSEILLE commenced a negligence action against

            TRANSIT in Supreme Court, 1\'.ew York County, under Index 159418/2018.
             450329/2023 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL vs. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE                              Page 1 of4
             COMPANY ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:13 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 450329/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   In connection with       TRANSIT's       defense,   TRANSIT      sought records       regarding

            MARSEILLE records relating to a prior October 16, 2013, automobile accident and subsequent

            litigation. Specifically, TRANSIT sought the non-privileged legal file from MARSEILLE's prior

           counsel,    Respondent    LINDER      &    ROGOWSKY         and   the   records    from    Respondent

            PROGRESSIVE, the no-fault provider.

                   On or about September 9, 2022, TRANSIT served PROGRESSIVE with a subpoena duces

            tecum, with a duly executed HIP AA authorizations MARSEILLE authorizing the release of the

            requested records. TRANSIT then continued to correspond with PROGRESSIVE in an effort to

            obtain the records via email correspondence and telephone calls. TRANSIT also sent a letter,

            dated November 21, 2022 via UPS overnight mail to PROGRESSIVE advising that the within

            contempt proceeding would be commenced if PROGRESSIVE did not comply. To date,

            Progressive has not complied with the subpoena nor appeared in this action.

                   As to Respondent LI DER AND ROGOWSKY, during oral arguments, TRANSIT

            informed the Court that LINDER AND ROGOWSKY had complied with the subpoena. As per

            the respective parties' stipulation, this instant Order to Show Cause is withdrawn against

            HARMON LINDER AND ROGOWSK Y (NYSCEF Doc. 18).

                                                            Discussion

                   Holding a party in civil contempt is a severe measure not to be applied lightly. Thus it is

            incumbent upon the party seeking the relief to show that the uncomplying party's actions were

            "calculated to, or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice [a party's J rights or remedies"

            (Taveras v. Gen. Trading Co., 73 AD3d 659 [l st Dept 201 0]; Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri, 305 AD2d

            394 [I st Dept 2003]).

             450329/2023 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL vs. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE             Page 2 of 4
             COMPANY ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:13 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 450329/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   Further, regarding subpoenas during litigation, if the documents or items sought are

           relevant to the prosecution or defense and are in the control of the party, then the party must turned

            them over (see e.g. Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3d 32 11 NE3d 709 l2014]; see State ex rel. Murra_v v.

            Baumslag, 134 A D3d 45 1 [1st Dept 2015 ]).

                   Here, TRANSIT in its papers has shown that as a result of the July 23, 2017 accident,

            MARSEILLE is alleging serious injuries including injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine.

           TRANSIT has further shown that in 2013, approximately four (4) years before, MARSEILLE was

            in another litigated automobile related accident in which she alleged sustaining injuries to the same

           areas including her cervical and lumbar spine.

                   Further, TRANSJT's subpoena to PROGRESSIVE is very specific in the documents that

            it seeks and includes the claim number for the 2013 accident. Yet PROGRESSIVE has not

           responded to the subpoena nor has appeared in this instant proceeding.

                   Accordingly, this Court finds that Transit has shown that the materials sought are material

           and necessary to TRANSIT's defense in the underlying personal injury action and that

            PROGRESSIVE is compelled to tum over the records within 45 days from the date of entry of this

            Order (see CPLR 3101; CPLR 3124; CPLR 2308; Kapon, 23 NY3d 32 11 NE3d 709 ; State ex

            rel. Murray, 134 AD3d 451). Upon noncompliance by PROGRESSIVE, TRANSIT may move

           again for contempt.

                   In accordance with the above, it is hereby

                   ORDERED that Petitioners' motion by Order to Show Cause is granted only against

            Respondent PROGRESSIVE INSliRANCE COMP ANY to the extent that PROGRESSIVE is

            compelled to tum over the documents requested in the subpoena within 45 days from the date of

            entry of this ORDER; it is further

             450329/2023 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL vs. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE           Page 3 of4
             COMPANY ET Al
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:13 P~                                                INDEX NO. 450329/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                     ORDERED that Petitioners arc to serve PROGRESSIVE in compliance with CPLR 311,

            via certified mail return receipt requested, and submit proof of service upon the CLERK; it is

           further

                     ORDERED that Petitioners' ORDER TO SI !OW CAUSE against Respondents, MARIE

           MARSEILLE and HARMON LINDER AND ROGOWSKY are deemed withdrav-m; and it is

           further

                     ORDERED that counsel for Petitioners shall serve a copy of this Order with notice of entry

           within 20 days upon all Respondents by certified mail return receipt and electronic filing upon the

            Clerk of the Court and the Respondents who appeared.

                     This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                     4/1/2024
                      DATE
                                                                        Di   DENISE M DO
            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

            450329/2023 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL vs. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE           Page 4 of 4
            COMPANY ET AL
            Motion No. 001

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]