Court Opinion

ID: 9956351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 20:12:20.098196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:53.357130
License: Public Domain

Nunez v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31018(U)
                     March 13, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 117678/2009
              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. 117678/2009
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                                  SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                            NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:           HON. DENISE M DOMINGUEZ                                                                                35
                              -------------                - -PRESENT:
                                                      - -Justice
           ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- X   INDEX NO.              l 17678/2009
            ROBERTI A NUNEZ
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.              003
                                                      Plaintiff,

                                                 - V -

                                                                                                      DECISION + ORDER 0
            THE CITY OF NEW YORK , NEW YORK CITY
                                                                                                           MOTION
            DEPA RTM ENT OF ENVIRO MENTAL PROTECTTO

                                                      Defendants

           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
            THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
            OF ENV IRON MENTAL PROTECTION                                                                    Third-Party
                                                                                                       Index No. 595907/2021
                                                      Third- Party Plaintiffs,

                                                -v-

             CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMP A Y OF NEW YORK, INC.

                                                      Third Party Defendants.
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
             CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPA NY OF NEW YORK, I C.

                                                 Second Third- Party Plaintiffs,

                                                -v-
             EW YORK CITY TRANS IT AUTHORITY and
            METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORJTY

                                                 Second Third Party Defendants.
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 43, 44, 45 , 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
           51 , 52, 53, 54, 55,56, 57,58, 59, 60,61,62, 63 , 64, 65
           were read on this motion to/for                                                          DISMISS

                     For the reasons that fo ll ow, Second Third Party Defendants, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

           AUTHORITY and METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORJTY's (Transi t) motion to

           dismiss the Second Third Party Complaint is granted.

            117678/2009 ROBE RTINA NUNEZ vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                         Page 1 of 5
            Motion No. 003

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 5
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 117678/2009
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                                                 Background and Procedural History

                   This personal injury matter arises out of a December 24, 2008 incident wherein Plaintiff

           ROB ER TINA NUNEZ, alleges that she fell due to a defective sidewalk/curb condition near a bus stop

           at 3397 Broadway in Manhattan (NYSCEF Doc. 44).

                   On or about December 17, 2009, Plaintiff's commenced this action by filing the summons and

           complaint against Defendants, the CITY OF      EW YORK (City), NEW YORK CITY DEPARTME T

           OF ENVIRO MENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) and TRANSIT                         YSCEF Doc. 42).

                   Nearly seven year later, a request for a Preliminary Conference with the court was filed on

           October 7, 2016 and the conference was held on December 7, 2016              YSCEF Doc. 42). Counsels

           during oral arguments before this Court did not explain such delay . The Court however notes that this

           matter was not deemed abandoned. Nor was any motion filed by Defendants to dismiss for failure to

           prosecute. Further, it was not until August 13, 2020 that part of the papers in the action were converted

           to electronic filing.

                   By Decision and Order by Sokoloff J, dated September 28, 2017, Tran sit's summary judgment

           motion was granted. Therein, it was he ld that TRANSIT had established its prima facie burden in

           showing that it did not own, operate, maintain, manage or control the area where the accident allegedly

           occurred. In support, Transit submitted an affidavit from one of it arch itects, attesting that based upon

           a search of it records, and a review of Plaintifrs notice of claim, including the photograph annexed to

           same, TRANS IT did not own, maintain, operate or control the sidewalk/curb in front of 3397

           Broadway , the alleged accident location (NYSCEF Doc. 47). The decision was not appealed.

                   On March I, 2021, over I I years after this matter was commenced, over four years after the

           Preliminary Conference was held, and nearly three and a half years after TRANSIT was dismissed

           from   the   action,    Defendants   CITY   and    DEP     commenced     a   third-party   action   against

            11767812009 ROBERTINA NUNEZ vs. CI TY OF NEW YORK                                          Page 2 of s
            Motion No. 003

[* 2]                                                        2 of 5
                                                                                                          INDEX NO. 117678/2009
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. (CON ED) for contribution,

            common-law indemnification, and contractual indemnification (NYSCEF Doc. 4).

                    Third Party Defendant, CON ED then on October 5, 2021, commenced a Second Third-Party

            action against TRANSIT seeking contribution and common-law indemnification on the basis that

            TRANSIT was negligent in properly maintaining a manhole cover (NYSCEF Doc. 12).

                    TRANSIT then timely moved to dismiss (Motion Seq. 2). Following oral arguments on Motion

            Seq. 2, the motion was denied with leave to refile upon all pleadings, motion papers and orders being

            fully converted to e-filing.

                    TRANSIT now again in Motion Seq. 3 moves by notice of motion to dismiss the Second Third-

            Party Compliant pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action and pursuant to

            3211 (a)(5) based upon res_judicata. Con Ed and Plainti rr oppose.

                                                                 Discussion

                    In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR

            32 l l(a)(7), initially, the sole criteria to consider is whether the pleading state a cause of action, and if

            from its four corners factual allegations arc discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action

            cognizable at law (Cuggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268 [ 1977]; Himmelstein, McConnell,

            Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v. Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 37 NY3d 169 [2021]; Leon v.

            Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 l1994]). Further, when evidentiary material is considered, the criteria is whether

            the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one (Guggenheimer).

                    Here, Con ED's third Party Action against TRANSIT is based not on Plaintiff's theory that

            TRANSIT was negligent based on ownership and maintaining the sidewalk but rather on the basis that

            TRANSIT was negligent in properly maintaining a manhole cover.

                    Upon review of the court file, a defective manhole theory as to the cause of Plaintifrs accident

            emerges for the first time, after over 11 years of Iitigat ion in Plaintiffs June 24, 2021 bill of particulars

             117678/2009 ROB ERTi NA NU NEZ vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                           Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 003

                                                               3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 117678/2009
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            (NYSCEF Doc. 34). Significantly, no transcript, affidavit or marked photo was submitted showing that

            the condition which caused Plaintiff to trip and fall concerned a manhole cover or was adjacent to a

            manhole cover or otherwise involved a manhole cover.

                    Further based on Plaintiffs notice or claim (NYSCEF Doc. 45), complaint (NYSCEF Doc.

            42) and Plaintiff's initial October 7, 2016 bill of particulars (NYSCEF Doc. 42), she allegedly suffered

            injuries due to tripping and falling on a dangerous condition on the sidev.-·alk/curb that consisted or a

            broken, raised, depressed trap-like condition with missing pieces and imbeddcd snow and ice as she

            walked along the sidewalk near 3397 Broadway. Also, Plaintiffs claims against TRANS IT were based

            on negligence of its ownership, operation, management, maintenance and control of the sidewalk/curb.

                   Accordingly, even giving CON ED and Plaintiff the most favorable inferences and accepting

            their affidavits that TRANSIT may have owned the alleged manhole cover on the date of Plaintiffs

            alleged accident, there is no credible evidence showing that Plaintifrs accident was caused by any

            defective in the manhole (see Guggenheimer, 43 NY2d 268; Leon, 84 "\"Y2d 83).

                   Thus, as CON ED's contribution and common-law indemnification claims hinge on

            TRANSIT's alleged negligence, and as TRANSIT cannot be found negligent as TRANSIT did not

            own, operate, maintain, manage or control the sidewalk and curb where this accident occurred, and as

            it is pure speculation to assert TRANSIT owned and/or controlled a manhole cover which may have

            been involved in Plaintiffs accident, any viable causes of action against TRANSIT fai!.

                   As this Court has found that CON ED cannot substantiate a cause of action for contribution or

            common law indemnification premises upon TRANSIT's negligence, dismissal pursuant to CPLR

           321 l (a)(7) is warranted. Further this Court does not reach the branch of TRANSIT' s motion seeking

            dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(5).

                   It is hereby

             11767812009 ROBERTI NA NUNEZ vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                        Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 003

[* 4]                                                       4 of 5
                                                                                                           INDEX NO. 117678/2009
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                    ORDERED          that   Defendants       NEW   YORK   CITY    TRANSIT           AUTHORITY            and

            METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORlTY's motion to dismiss the Second Third-Party

            complaint is granted; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that all future papers filed

            with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further

                    ORDERED that counsel for Defendants NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and

            METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY shall serve a copy of this order with notice

            of entry upon all parties within 30 days, and upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

            Clerk's Office, who are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the change in the caption herein;

            and it is further

                     ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's

            Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and

            County Clerk Procedures for /<;/ectronicaily Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the

            court's website).

                    3!1312024
                                                                                                       )
                      DATE                                                       DENISE M DOMINGUEZ, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                      CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                             GRANTED          □ DENJED     GRANTED IN PART             □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                    SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:           INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       □ REFERENCE
             11767612009    ROBERTINA NUNEZ vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                           Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 003

[* 5]                                                          5 of 5