Court Opinion

ID: 9958683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:08:57.403806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.945288
License: Public Domain

Thomas v New York City Tr. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31130(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
             Docket Number: 151346/2020
              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 04/05/2024 04:59 PM                                                                              INDEX NO. 151346/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 97                                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                                  SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                            NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESE T:            HON. DENISE M DOMINGUEZ                                              PART                                      35M
                                                                                       Jw;tice
           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X        INDEX NO.                  151346/2020
             ZETHROY THOMAS,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0_0..c..
                                                                                                                             3.....;.0...;..
                                                                                                                                       04_     _
                                                    Plaintiff

                                                 - V -

             NEW YORK CITY TA SIT AUTHORITY, EDWARD D.
                                                                                                      DECISION AND ORDER ON
             DOUCE, EMMA UEL VARGAS BORREL, VICTOR M.
             BORREL, MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT
                                                                                                             MOTION
             OPERA TT G AUTHORITY

                                                    Defendants

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

            T he following e-filed documents, listed by          YSCEF document number (Motion 003) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 , 74, 75, 76,
            77 , 78 , 84, 86,87, 92, 94,95
            were read on this motion to/for                                           REARGUMENT/ RECONSIDE RA TION

            The following e-filcd documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 79 , 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 85, 88, 89,
            90,91 , 93
            were read on this motion to/for                                            REARGUME T/RECONSIDERATIO

                     Plaintiff Zethroy Thomas (THOMAS), in motion Seq. 3, and Defendants Victor M. Barrel

           (BORREL) and Emmanuel Barrel-Vargas (VARGAS) in motion Seq. 4, move for reargument of

           this Court's Decision and Order, granting summary judgment to Co-Defendants, New York City

           Transit Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA Bus Company, Manhattan and

           Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, Edward D. Douce's (TRANSIT).

                      Upon reconsideration, these motions are granted and the previously granted motion for

           summary judgment to TRA SIT (Motion Seq. 2) is now denied.

                                                                             Background

                     This       personal         mJury        matter       anses        out      a    collision      between        a     public

           bus, operated by TRANSIT bus driver, Defendant Edward D. Douce (DOUCE), and a motor

             15134612020 THOMAS , ZETHROY vs. NEW YORK CITY TANS IT AUTHORITY                                                   Page1of4
             Motion No. 003 004

[* 1]                                                                      1 of 4
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/05/2024 04:59 PM                                               INDEX NO. 151346/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 97                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           vehicle owned by BORREL and operated by VARGAS. Plaintiff, a passenger on the public bus,

           alleges that on June 13, 2019, at or near the intersection of West 125th Street and Amsterdam

           Avenue in Manhattan, he sustained injuries as a result of the accident when the bus driver suddenly

           applied the brakes. Plaintiff then commenced a negligence action against TRANSIT, BORREL

           and VARGAS .

                   This Court notes that this action was joined for the purposes of trial and discovery by

           Decision and Order (Adam, J) with related matter captioned, Michael Cook v. New York City

           Transit Authority et al., Index No. 450720/2021 (NYSCEF Doc. 25). Plaintiff Michal Cook was

           also a passenger on the public bus who alleged sustaining injuries as a result of this same accident

           and commenced a negligence action against the same Defendants.

                   Post-note of issue, TRANSIT moved for summary judgment in both matters. In both

           matter, this Court found that based on the evidence submitted and primarily relying on the bus

           video, TRANSIT had established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and opposing papers

           had not raised a material issue of fact (see e.g., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986];

           Santana v. Metro. Tramportation Co., 170 A.D.3d 551 [1st Dept 2019); Clayson v. Williams, 203

           AD3d 656, [1st Dept 2022]; see also Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Auth., 172 AD3d 508

           [ I st Dept 2019]).

                   Plaintiff THOMAS , BORREL, and VARGAS now move for reargument, pursuant to

           CPLR 2221, asserting that questions of fact remain regarding TRA SIT' s liability and rely upon

           a previously submitted TRANSIT investigative memorandum. TRANSIT opposes.

                                                           Discussion

                   In considering a timely motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 , this Court may

           grant such application upon a showing that it overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law

            151346/2020 THOMAS, ZETHROY vs. NEW YORK CITY T ANSIT AUTHORITY                      Page 2 of4
            Motion No. 003 004

[* 2]                                                    2 of 4
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/05/2024 04:59 PM                                              INDEX NO. 151346/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 97                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision (see CPLR 2221 [d][2]; William P.

           Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 AD2d 22 [l st Dept 1992)).

                  Here, the movants timely move for reargument and rely upon TRANSJT's investigative

           memorandum to argue that issues of fact exist that were overlooked. Specifically, the movants

           highlight that the memorandum concludes that multiple factors contributed to the collision

           including Defendant' s VARGAS actions but also that their own bus driver should have applied

           better defensive driving skills. In opposition, TRANSIT argues that the internal memo cannot be

           considered for purposes of TRANSIT 's liability since it is based on internal rules, regulations,

           guideline, protocols, policy practices or procedures that hold TRANSIT employees to a higher

           standard of care than common law.

                  Upon reconsideration, this Court concludes again that TRA SIT's evidence properly

           established that VARGAS 's driving caused the accident by crossing in front of the bus. VARGAS '

           actions created the situation that caused bus driver DOUCE to suddenly apply the brakes and cause

           Plaintiffs injuries, making the emergency doctrine applicable and DOUCE's actions reasonable.

                  However, upon further reconsideration, this Court now concludes that the memorandum

           raises a question of fact better suited for a trier of fact to decide- whether TRANSIT contributed

           at all to the accident (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Here the memo was

           prepared approximately eight (8) days after the accident and was based on ] RANSIT's own

           investigation conducted the day of the accident. Unlike other general policies and protocols by

           TRANSIT that hold their employees to a higher standard than common law negligence, this

           investigative memo was prepared specifically because of this accident. Further, the preparer of the

           memo, a TRANSIT employee, also considered the bus video and the statements given by the

           drivers. The memo concluded that multiple factors led to the accident, including that DOUCE

            151346/2020 THOMAS, ZETHROY vs . NEW YORK CITY TANSIT AUTHORITY                     Page 3 of4
            Motion No. 003 004

[* 3]                                                    3 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 151346/2020
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/05/2024 04:59 PM
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 97
                                                                                                                         l
                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           "failed to employ all the necessary defensive driving skills to avoid the collision"

                   Accordingly, while it is evident that VARGAS caused the accident, the preparer of the

           memo was not deposed, and the direct and cross-examination of this witnesses is necessary to

           eliminate all questions of fact as to any liability by TRANSIT. Thus, TRANSIT established a

           prima facia showing, but a material. question of fact did exist.

                   It is hereby,

                    ORDERED that Plaintiff THOMAS's motion to reargue (Motion Seq . 3) and Defendants

           BORREL and VARGAS ' motion to reargue (Motion Seq. 4), pursuant to CPLR 2221 are granted;

           and it is further

                   ORDERED that within 20 days from the entry of this Order, Plaintiff TI OMAS and

           Defendants BORREL and VARGAS shall serve a copy of this Order with notice of entry upon all

           parties and the Clerk of the Court in accordance with electronic filing.

                                                                     ~(
                    4/5/2024
                     DATE

            CHECK ONE:

            APPLICATION:
                                        CASE DISPOSED
                                        GRANTED

                                        SETTLE ORDER
                                                        □ DENIED
                                                                     8 ,        DENISE M DOMINGUEZ, J.S.C.

                                                                           NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
                                                                           GRANTED IN PART

                                                                           SUBMIT ORDER
                                                                                                   □ OTHER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE :      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            15134612020 THOMAS, ZETHROY vs. NEW YORK CITY TANSIT AUTHORITY                           Page4of4
            Motion No. 003 004

[* 4]                                                     4 of 4