Court Opinion

ID: 9958707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:37.036866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:38.803746
License: Public Domain

Plana v United Christian Evangelistic Assn.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31117(U)
                      April 3, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157354/2020
                  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. 157354/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:                            HON. HASA A. KINGO                               PART                              05M
                                                           Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          157354/2020
             DIONISIA PLANA,
                                                                                                                    03/23/2023,
                                                         Plaintiff,                                                 05/04/2023,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        12/04/2023
                                                 -v-
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.    003 004 005
             UNITED CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION,
             UNITED PALACE OF CULTURAL ARTS, INC.,UNITED
             PALACE OF SPIRITUAL ARTS, INC.,WASHINGTON
             HEIGHTS AND INWOOD DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             CORPORATION, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
             DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                                                MOTION

                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
            77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87
            were read on this motion for                                                         DISCOVERY                         .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
            93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114,
            115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
            136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153
            were read on this motion for                                                         DISCOVERY                         .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 154, 155, 156, 157,
            158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178,
            179
            were read on this motion for                                                         DISCOVERY                         .

                    There are three motions pending before the court in the instant case. With the first, plaintiff
            DIONISIA PLANA (“plaintiff”) seeks an order compelling defendants United Christian
            Evangelistic Association (“UCEA”), United Palace of Cultural Arts, Inc. (“UPCA”), and United
            Palace of Spiritual Arts Inc. (“UPSA”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “UCEA”) to furnish
            a representative for testimony at a deposition to be arranged by the plaintiff. With the second,
            plaintiff moves for an order compelling defendants City of New York (“City”) and New York City
            Department of Transportation (“NYCDT”) to produce outstanding discovery and to furnish
            witness Sam Wynn (“Wynn”) to testify at a deposition to be scheduled by plaintiff. Defendant
            Washington Heights and Inwood Development Corp. (“WHIDC”) joins in that application.
            Finally, with the third motion WHIDC moves to compel plaintiff to attend two additional
            independent medical examinations (“IMEs”).

             157354/2020 PLANA, DIONISIA vs. UNITED CHRISTIAN                                                        Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157354/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                                                      BACKGROUND

                    In this negligence lawsuit, plaintiff alleges that on March 19, 2019, she suffered severe
            injuries after tripping and falling on a sidewalk or plaza next to a building owned by UCEA located
            at 651 West 175th Street, New York, New York. Plaintiff contends that defendants are jointly
            responsible for maintaining a defective and unsafe condition on the sidewalk and/or being aware
            of such condition beforehand.

                    The case is presently in the pre-trial discovery phase. Plaintiff has been deposed, and on
            September 21, 2022, plaintiff's counsel deposed Thomas Cunningham (“Cunningham”), a
            representative of UCEA. Cunningham held the position of senior director of security and ceremony
            liaison, as well as head minister. During his testimony, he indicated that he had served as the head
            of security since September 10, 2018. He mentioned the existence of a maintenance team
            comprising nine individuals, which included Joan Guzman (“Guzman”), the director of operations
            responsible for overseeing the maintenance department. Cunningham testified that he regularly
            witnessed the maintenance team clearing snow and ice adjacent to the premises. However, he
            asserted that he never paid specific attention to or scrutinized the condition of the pavers where
            the accident occurred. Furthermore, he admitted to being unaware of any work conducted in that
            area since the accident date. Additionally, he clarified that the condition of the pavers was not a
            matter of concern for him and did not fall under his responsibilities. As such, plaintiff now seeks
            Guzman’s testimony to expound on perceived deficiencies in Cunningham’s testimony.

                   Separately, Larisa Dubina (“Dubina”), previously testified on behalf of the City. Dubina,
            a record searcher for NYCDT, testified during her deposition that she had no knowledge of the
            plaza. As such, plaintiff now seeks the testimony of Wynn, who plaintiff argues would have
            extensive knowledge of the plaza.

                                                        DISCUSSION

                    CPLR §3101 provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and
            necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” “The words
            ‘material and necessary’ as used in CPLR §3101(a) are ‘to be interpreted liberally to require
            disclosure ...of any facts bearing on the controversy’” (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. 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]; 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]; Quinones,
            132 AD3d at 750, supra). Pursuant to CPLR §3124 this court can, in its discretion, compel
            disclosure of information that a party fails to adequately respond to.

                   A plaintiff in a personal injury action affirmatively places her physical and/or mental
            condition in controversy (see Koump v. Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 295 [1969]). Pursuant to CPLR
            §3121, following the commencement of an action, “[w]here a plaintiff puts her physical condition

             157354/2020 PLANA, DIONISIA vs. UNITED CHRISTIAN                                     Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                            2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157354/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            at issue, the defendants may require a plaintiff to submit to an IME by a physician retained by
            defendant for that purpose” (Markel v. Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc., 171 AD3d 28, 29 [1st Dept
            2019]; see also Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393, 409 [2007]).

                    A defendant is entitled to an IME of a plaintiff where the plaintiff fails to make a prima
            facie showing that it is potentially harmful or poses a serious threat to her health (see Chavoustie
            v. New York Hosp.-Cornell Med. Ctr., 253 AD2d 702 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805
            [1999]).

            Motion Seq. 003

                    Here, plaintiff’s request to depose Guzman (Mot. Seq. 003) is denied. To be sure, plaintiff
            has failed to establish that Cunningham, a senior director of security and a community liaison for
            UCEA, who was already deposed on behalf of UCEA did not possess sufficient knowledge of the
            relevant facts or was otherwise inadequate. To the contrary, Cunningham’s testimony evinced that
            UCEA did not have responsibility for maintenance of the plaza. This stance would receive backing
            from Guzman, making any further testimony from her irrelevant and immaterial to the current
            case. Consequently, plaintiff's request to depose Guzman is denied.

            Motion Seq. 004

                    Plaintiff and WHIDC’s request to depose Wynn, however, is granted. Unlike Cunnigham,
            Dubina’s previous testimony on behalf of the City revealed that Dubina had no knowledge of the
            plaza. By contrast, Wynn was identified several months ago as having been provided with written
            notice concerning the dangerous condition of the plaza. Nevertheless, despite good faith demands
            on the part of plaintiff and other defendants, the City failed to produce any documentation
            concerning the defective condition of the subject location, email communication from and to
            Wynn, or anything from the plaza. As Wynn would likely provide testimony that is both material
            and relevant to this action, and that would expound on Dubina’s pervious testimony, it is axiomatic
            that plaintiff and WHIDC’s request to depose Wynn is granted. During the oral argument before
            the court on April 2, 2024, the City's counsel mentioned that Wynn might no longer be employed
            by the City. Should this be accurate, the City is directed to furnish plaintiff and WHIDC with
            Wynn’s most recent known address within fifteen (15) days following the issuance of this court's
            decision.

                    Separately, the City has failed to respond to two demands for documents made on February
            4, 2022 and November 2, 2022. In accordance with a prior compliance order, this court ordered
            the City to provide documents related to records in its possession for the period of two years prior
            to and including the date of the accident. It is indisputable, especially considering this court’s
            previous directives, that plaintiff and WHIDC are expressly entitled to obtain these documents,
            encompassing records, agreements, and email correspondence pertaining to the plaza, its
            condition, design, installation, maintenance, and repair for the two-year period leading up to and
            including the date of the accident. Consequently, the request made by plaintiff and WHIDC for
            these records is granted, and the City is directed to furnish them.

            Motion Seq. 005

             157354/2020 PLANA, DIONISIA vs. UNITED CHRISTIAN                                     Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157354/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                     Finally, WHIDC’s request for additional IMEs is granted. WHIDC correctly highlights
            that there is no prejudice to plaintiff attending further IMEs, whereas WHIDC would be prejudiced
            in its defense without them. WHIDC acknowledges it did not comply with the original IME time
            frames (within 60 days of plaintiff’s deposition per the Case Scheduling Order), but states the
            oversight was inadvertent. The court credits and accepts that assertion, and deems plaintiff's
            opposition, primarily centered on highlighting WHIDC’s perceived non-compliance with court
            orders, as unpersuasive. In addition, in this case, where plaintiff is alleging injuries to her cervical
            spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, left shoulder, and left-hand necessitating surgery, it is
            unquestionable that the requested IMEs are both material and relevant to the defense of this action.
            Plaintiff acknowledged this fact during oral arguments before the court on April 2, 2024. Indeed,
            at oral argument, plaintiff confessed that plaintiff’s opposition was primarily based on hostility
            towards WHIDC’s non-compliance with court orders rather than a genuine belief that WHIDC
            was not entitled to additional IMEs based on the alleged injuries.

                     Although this court promotes adherence to court orders as an essential and pivotal element
            in achieving a just outcome, fidelity to this principle must occasionally give way to the court's
            fundamental duty not to disadvantage any party or hinder their ability to represent their clients in
            the most exemplary manner. As such, it is axiomatic that WHIDC is entitled to conduct physicals
            relating to plaintiff’s alleged neurological and spinal injuries. Plaintiff’s assertion that IMEs should
            have been conducted within conducted within three weeks rather than three months is
            unpersuasive, particularly where, as here, the IMEs would have been noticed and conducted prior
            to the instant motion practice if plaintiff had simply agreed to a slightly longer period than plaintiff
            would have ideally preferred. Where, as here, WHIDC attempted to obviate the need for the instant
            motion practice by communicating in good faith with plaintiff, the court does not agree with
            plaintiff’s assertions that WHIDC’s conduct is willful and contumacious. Rather, on balance,
            WHIDC is simply requesting examinations material to its defense. And WHIDC, in this court’s
            assessment, is entitled to those material and necessary examinations. As such, it is hereby

                 ORDERED that Motion Seq. 003 is denied to the extent that plaintiff’s request to depose
            Guzman is denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that Motion Seq. 004 is granted to the extent that plaintiff and WHIDC’s
            request to depose Wynn, is granted and said deposition shall be conducted within sixty (60) days
            of this order; and it is further

                     ORDERED that if Wynn is no longer employed by the City, the City shall provide Wynn’s
            last known address within fifteen (15) days of this order and Wynn’s deposition shall be held
            forthwith thereafter in accordance with any subpoenas issues to procure Wynn’s appearance; and
            it is further

                    ORDERED that Motion Seq. 004 is further granted to the extent that the City is directed to
            respond, within sixty (60) days of this order, to previous demands for documents made on February
            4, 2022 and November 2, 2022 for the period of two years prior to and including the date of the
            accident, including but not limited to records, agreements, and email correspondence pertaining to
            the plaza, its condition, design, installation, maintenance; and it is further

             157354/2020 PLANA, DIONISIA vs. UNITED CHRISTIAN                                        Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                            4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157354/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                    ORDERED that the City’s failure to provide the requested records within the timeframe
            allotted may result in the striking of the City’s answer and further sanctions as deemed appropriate
            by this court; and it is further

                    ORDERED that if the City is unable to provide the requested records within the timeframe
            allotted, the City shall produce an affidavit from an affiant with personal knowledge detailing all
            efforts that the City has made to secure the requested records within the sixty (60) days of this
            order; and it is further

                    ORDERED that Motion Seq. 005 is granted to the extent that plaintiff is to appear for a
            further independent neurological and spinal medical examinations before Drs. Bender and Bendo,
            or other properly designated physicians, within sixty (60) days of the date of this order; and it is
            further

                    ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a compliance conference before the
            court in Part DCM located on the first floor of the courthouse located at 80 Centre Street, on June
            4, 2024 at 2:00 PM.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                     4/3/2024
                      DATE                                                            HASA A. KINGO, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                  X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED               DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             157354/2020 PLANA, DIONISIA vs. UNITED CHRISTIAN                                          Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]