Court Opinion

ID: 9956342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 20:11:57.215158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:52.983083
License: Public Domain

Morang v New York City Tr. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31022(U)
                     March 27, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157780/2012
                  Judge: Adam Silvera
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. 157780/2012
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 226                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:        HON. ADAM SILVERA                                PART                                 40
                                                                  Justice
                                                              ----X         INDEX NO.            157780/2012
             MICHELLE MORANG
                                                                            MOTION DATE           09/01/2023
                                               Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.           007
                                       - V -

             THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,                              DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                     MOTION
                                               Defendant.
                              ----------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 201, 202, 203, 204,
            205,206,207,212,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,224,225
           were read on this motion to/for                        REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

                    Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendant New York City Transit

           Authority's motion to reargue this Court's prior Decision/Order dated July 3, 2023 (hereinafter

           referred to as the "Prior Decision"), and to vacate such order, is denied for the reasons set forth

           below.

                    Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant, by summons and complaint seeking

           monetary damages for personal injuries resulting from an accident which allegedly occurred

           when plaintiffs foot fell into the gap between the train and the platform. In the Prior Decision,

           this Court determined that the plaintiff had established that the documents requested in plaintiffs

           demands were material and necessary, and ordered plaintiff to be permitted to inspect

           defendant's security camera center. Here, defendant moves to reargue the Prior Decision, and

           seeks, upon reargument, for the vacatur of the order to produce discovery and an inspection.

             157780/2012 MORANG, MICHELLE vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY                                   Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 007

                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157780/2012
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 226                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

           Defendant does not seek to reargue the portion of the Prior Decision with regards to the qualified

           immunity defense. Defendant argues that as the Court's Prior Decision did not explicitly state the

           outstanding discovery, the Court could not have determined that the unspecified discovery was

           material and necessary. Defendant further argues that the Court erred in ordering defendant to

           permit plaintiff to inspect defendant's secured video security center as sufficient affidavits were

           provided by defendant on this issue. Plaintiff opposes and defendant replies.

                   CPLR 2221 (d)(2) permits a party to move for leave to reargue a decision upon a showing

           that the court misapprehended the law in rendering its initial decision. "A motion for leave to

           reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be

           granted only upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or

           for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision." William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v

           Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 (1 st Dep't 1992), appeal denied in part, dismissed in part 80 NY2d

           1005 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).

                   The Court notes that defendant failed to establish that the Court, in the Prior Decision,

           misapprehended or overlooked the facts or law in ordering discovery. In fact, the Court clearly

           stated that a determination was made that the discovery requested by plaintiff was material and

           necessary. Although defendant argues herein that the Court could not have evaluated the

           relevancy of the requested discovery as the Court did not explicitly list the discovery, such

           argument fails. In the prior motion, Plaintiffs Combined Demands for Discovery dated July 21,

           2015 and plaintiffs Second Set of Combined Demands dated May 18, 2018 were readily

           available for the Court's review. In fact, plaintiff's discovery demands were proffered by

           defendant in support of the prior motion. Having reviewed plaintiff's requested discovery, the

             157780/2012 MORANG, MICHELLE vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY                                   Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 007

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157780/2012
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 226                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

           Court found that such discovery was material and necessary. Here, defendant fails to

           demonstrate any misapprehension in the Prior Decision.

                     With regards to defendant's argument relating to the video security center, the Court

           notes that defendant's arguments regarding the sufficiency of the affidavits submitted in the prior

           motion also fails. The Court, in the Prior Decision, explicitly held, after review of such

           affidavits, that "defendant Transit Authority does not dispute that it failed to provide an affidavit

           as ordered by Judge Adams in February of 2020. Moreover, the affidavits of Mr. Boychuk,

           proffered herein, is insufficient to establish that there were no cameras capable of capturing the

           instant accident." Prior Decision, p. 4. In fact, "Mr. Boychuk's affidavit specifically states that

           there is one camera that is capable of capturing the location of the accident." Id. Here, defendant

           has failed to demonstrate that the Court misapprehended the law or facts in ordering an

           inspection of the video security center.

                     Accordingly, it is

                     ORDERED that the defendant's motion to reargue is denied in its entirety; and it is

           further

                     ORDERED that, within 30 days, plaintiff shall serve defendant with a supplemental

           discovery demand detailing all the outstanding documentary discovery; and it is further

                     ORDERED that defendant shall respond to plaintiff's supplemental discovery demand

           within 90 days thereafter; and it is further

                     ORDERED that defendant's counsel shall arrange with plaintiff's counsel for a site

           inspection to take place within 90 days; and it is further

                     ORDERED that, within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve upon all parties a copy of

            157780/2012 MORANG, MICHELLE vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY                                     Page 3 of 4
            Motion No. 007

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157780/2012
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 226                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

           this decision and order, together with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                   3/27/2024
                     DATE                                                      ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

                                    ~
            CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                        GRANTED         0    DENIED   GRANTED IN PART             □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

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

            157780/2012 MORANG, MICHELLE vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY                                      Page 4 of 4
            Motion No. 007

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]