Court Opinion

ID: 9916555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:57.99824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:34.370194
License: Public Domain

Evart v Gerta Gente, LLC
               2023 NY Slip Op 34579(U)
                     January 5, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 101138/2022
                 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
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. 101138/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:         HON. MARY V. ROSADO                                  PART                             33M
                                                                      Justice
           ·····-·························----··-······-······-··········-··X    INDEX NO.         101138/2022
            CLAUDIA EVART,
                                                                                 MOTION DATE       02/02/2023
                                                 Plaintiff,
                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.        001
                                         • V .

            GERTA GENTE, LLC.                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                         MOTION
                                                 Defenda nt.

           ·····························-·-·-·-·-·························---X
           The following e•filed documents. listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001 ) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
           15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
           were read on this motion to/for                                         DISMISS

                    Upon the foregoing documents, and al1er oral argument which occurred on August 16,

           2023 wi th Jose A. Muniz, F.sq. appearing for Plaintiff Claudia Evart (" Plaintiff') and Scolt R.

           Dinstcll, Esq . appearing for Defendant Certa Gentc, LLC rDcfcndant"), Defendant's motion

           seeking summary judgment in favor of, and dismissal of all claims against Defendant, is granted.

               I.      Background ancl Procedural History

                    This action concerns a motor vehicle accident alleged to have occurred on March 23 ,

           2015 (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at 19). Plaintiff: pro se. commenced this lawsuit by filing a Summons

           with Notice wi th the New York County Clerk's Office on December 5, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc.

           12). On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff served a Complaint and Jury Demand on Defendant

           (NYSCF.F Doc. 15).

                    Plaintiff' s Complaint asserts that Defendant is an Ttalian Restaurant in New York City,

           owned and operated by Franco Lazzari ("Lazzar i''), Stafano T erri ('Terzi") and Daniel Kucera

           ("Kucera") (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at ~4). Plaintiff claims that on March 23, 2015 , a vehicle owned by

           Terzi and operated by Lazzari (the " Vehicle"), struck Plaintiff while Plaintiff was lawl'ully

            101138/2022 EVART, CLAUDIA vs. CERTA GENTE, LLC                                         Page 1 of 5
            Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                          1 of 5
                                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 101138/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           walking up Park Avenue in New York City (the "Accident") (NSYCEF l)oc. 6 at ,19). Plainti ff

           claims that she was struck by the Vehicle " lsJolely by reason of [Lazzaril and lTer1/.i'sJ

           ncg,ligcncc in the ownership, operation and control" of the Vehicle (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at • 12).

           Plaintiff claims that l)cfcndant is vicariously liable [or Plaintiff's alleged injuries under a theory

           of negligent cntrusuncnt (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at~ 18).

                     Previously. on October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against l.a,,_.zari and

           Ter,;i in the Kew York County Supreme Court, captioned Claudia Hvar1 v S,ejano Terzi and

           1-i·anco La:zari. bearing Index ;,lumber 161123,'20 IS (the "Previous Action"') (NYSCF.F Doc.

           23). Plaintitrs Complaint in the Previous Action asserted claims for negligence against Lazzari

           and Tcrzi for allegedly causing Plaintiff's \-larch 23, 2015 Accident (NYSCEF Doc. 23 at ,16).

           At an appearance before I Ion. James G. Clynes on July 14, 2022, Plainti ff settled the Previous

           Action with Lazzari and Tcrzi , agreeing to accept $250,000.00 in exchange lbr extinguishing her

           claims against them (NYSCEF Doc. 24).

                     On February 2, 2023 Defendant commcncc-d the instant motion seeking an Order granting

           summary judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and dismissing all claims against

           Defendant on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations expired prior to Plaintiff filing

           suit (NYSCF.F Doc. I 0). In support of its motion for summary judgment. Defendant filed an

           Affirmation in Support on February 2, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 10). Plaintiff, prose. filed an

           A ffim1ation in Opposition on April 20. 2023 (NYSCF.F Doc. 19). Defendant filed a Reply

           Affirmation on Apri l 25, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 22). 1 On July 25. 2023, .lose A. Muniz, Esq. filed

           a Notice of Appcarnnce on behalf of Plaintiff (l\YSCEF Doc. 28).

           111 is noted Iha! Plaini iff li lcd a Sur-Reply on July 3, 2023 (NYSCEI' IJoc. 27). The Pa,1 33 Rules stale lhal " [n)o
           sur-rcply papers arc pcrrnillcd" and " [m)a1crials submined in violation o f ihis rule will he disrcgurdcd by the Cou11.''
           According!)', Plainti frs Ju ly 3, 2 023 Sur-Reply w ill not be considered.
               101138/2022 EVART. CLAUDIA vs. CERT A GENTE, LLC                                                     Page 2 of 5
               Motion No. 001

[* 2]                                                              2 of 5
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 101138/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

               II.      Discuss ion

                        A. Plaintiffs Personal Injury Claims A!!ainst Defendant arc 13an:ed bv Res Judicata

                     In Kew York, res j11dicara "bars successive litigation based upon the same transaction or

           series of connected transactions•· (Mauer ofPeople ofthe Suue of New York, by Fliot Spitzer, as

           Attorney Gen. v Applied Card Sys., inc., 11 NY3d 105, 122 [2008]. Further, "settlement

           agreements arc entitled lo res j ud icata effect" (Id. at 124 citi ng Oly111pic Tower Assocs v. New

           York, 81 NY2d 961 fl 9931). For resj11dica1a to apply, the party against whom the doctrine is

           invoked must have been a party to the previous action, or in privily with a party who was (Id. at

           122). The Court of Appeals has held that '·[gjenerally, to establish privily the com1cction

           between the parties must be such that the interest of the nonparty can be said to have been

           represented in the prior proceeding" (Green v Santa Fe Industries. Inc., 70 NY2d 244 [ 1987j).

                     Herc, Plaintifl's claims stem from the same March 23, 20 15 /\ccidelll as those in the

           Previous Action. Further. Plaintiff assens in his Complaint that De fendant is owned and operated

           by Lazzari and Terzi, the two defendants in the Previous Action. Accord ingly, the interests of

           Defendant were represented in the Previous Action. As such. the sculcment of the Previous

           Action is entitled to res judicata precluding Plaintifl's from asserting the instant claims, which

           stem from the same transaction al; the previously settled action, against Defendant, who is in

           privit:y with the de rendants in the Previous Action.

                         ll. Defendant' s Motion for Summarv Jud gnient is Granted

                     Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where lhc moving party has

           tendered sunicient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v

            Restani Const. Corp. , 18 NY3d 499. 503 120121). The moving party' s ·'burden is a heavy one and

           on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-

            101 13812022 EVART, CLAUDIA vs. CERTA GENTE, LLC                                        Page 3 of 5
            Motion No, 001

[* 3]                                                     3 of 5
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 101138/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           moving party." (.Jacobsen v New York City Health and 1/osps. Corp. , 22 NY3d 824, 833120141).

           Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce

           cvi<lentiary proof, in admissible form, suflicient to establish ihc existence of material issues of fact

           which require a trial (see e.g , Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 l\Y2d 557. 562 [1980J:

           Pemberton,. New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 340,342 fl" Dept 20031). Mere conclusions of

           law or fact arc insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Banco Popular North

           Am. ,, Victory Taxi Mgt .. Inc.. 1 NY3d 381 [20041).

                     Herc, the record establishes that Defendant is in privily wi th La;,.7.ari and Tcrzi, as Lazzari

           and Tcrzi arc two    or the three principal owners and operators of Defendant (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at
           1[4). Further. Plai nti frs claim in this action stems from the same Accident as that in his Previous

           Action. As it is well setlle<l that settlement agreements arc afforded prcclusivc effect pursuant to

           resj11dicata, scltlement of the Previous Action serves l<) har Plaintiffs claims against Dcl"c11dan1

           in this case.

                     As Plaintiff has faiJc.d to produce evidentiary proof, in admissible form , sullicicnt io

           establish the existence of material issues of fact, Defendant's motion for summary judgment

           dismissing Plaintiff's claims against ii is granted.

                     Accordingly. it is hereby,

                     ORDERED that Defendant Cena Genie, I.I.C's motion for summary judgment is granted,

           and PlaintifT Claudia Evart's Complaint and all claims against Defcndam arc dismissed; and it is

           further

                     ORDERED that within ten days or entry, eoUJ1scl for Defendant shall serve a copy of this

           Decision and Order on Plaintiff; and it is further

            101138/2022 EVART. CLAUDIA vs. CERTA GENTE, LLC                                           Pago4 of5
            Motion No. 001

[* 4]                                                        4 of 5
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 101138/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                   ORDF.RED Lhat the Clerk of Lhc Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

                   This constiLutcs the Decision and Order of the Court.

                    1/5/2023                                                    /11~ V ;,, ,..,. J \. <..
                     DATE                                                    HON. MXRY V. ROSADO, J .S.C.

            CHECK ONE:               x   CASE OlSPOSEO                 N ON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                     a   GRANTED         □ DENIED      GRANTED lN PART            □ OTHER
            APPUCATIOH:                  SETTLE ORDER                  SVBMIT OflOER

            CHECK fF APPAOPRfATE:        lNCLUOES TRAHSFERJREASSIGN    FIOUC1ARY APPOINTMENT      □ REFERENCE

            10113812022 EVART, CLAUDIA vs. CERTA GENTE, LLC                                        Pago 5 of 5
            Motion No. 001

[* 5]                                                     5 of 5