Matter of Gerson v. Porter
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 34260(U) (Matter of Gerson v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Matter of Gerson v Porter 2024 NY Slip Op 34260(U) December 3, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 160788/2024 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. 160788/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. HASA A. KINGO PART 05M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 160788/2024 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSHUA GERSON, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF AKIKO MOTION DATE N/A OMI, DECEASED, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 Petitioner,
-v- WILLIAM J. PORTER, JURIST INFLUENCE GROUP, LLC, DECISION + ORDER ON NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MOTION NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 9, 11, 12, 13 were read on this motion for DISCOVERY - PRE-ACTION .
Petitioner seeks an order pursuant to CPLR § 3102(c) compelling preservation, discovery,
testing, and inspection of evidence critical to a forthcoming action. Specifically, petitioner requests
access to a motor vehicle allegedly involved in a fatal pedestrian accident, preservation of
associated data (e.g., Event Data Recorder information), and disclosure of records maintained by
municipal entities and the vehicle’s owner/operator.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 21, 2024, a vehicle owned by respondent Jurist Influence Group, LLC, and
operated by its employee, William J. Porter, allegedly struck and killed petitioner’s decedent,
Akiko Omi, at the intersection of 59th Street and 2nd Avenue in New York County. According to
petitioner, the vehicle fled the scene, and decedent’s estate intends to commence a wrongful death
action.
160788/2024 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSHUA GERSON, AS EXECUTOR OF Page 1 of 4 THE ESTATE OF AKIKO OMI, DECEASED vs. PORTER, WILLIAM J. ET AL Motion No. 001
1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 160788/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2024
Petitioner filed this application under CPLR § 3102(c) to secure and preserve evidence,
including inspection of the vehicle, data retrieval from its Event Data Recorder (EDR), and records
from municipal respondents. Respondents oppose the motion, contending that some requests are
moot or unduly burdensome.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner asserts that immediate access to and preservation of evidence is essential for the
forthcoming litigation. Citing case law, including Spriggins v. Current Cab Corp., 127 Misc. 2d
774 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1985), and Christiano v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 1 A.D.3d 289 (1st
Dept. 2003), petitioner argues that such orders are appropriate to prevent spoliation of critical
evidence. Petitioner emphasizes that the requested items, such as the EDR data and roadway
maintenance records, are vital for establishing liability.
Respondents William J. Porter and Jurist Influence Group, LLC, argue that they have
already offered access to the vehicle for inspection and data download, and any delay rests solely
with petitioner. They contend that once the inspection is completed, they should be permitted to
return the vehicle to service or dispose of it. They also argue that requests for municipal records
are irrelevant to their interests and that claims related to nonexistent dash cam footage are moot.
The municipal respondents did not submit opposing papers.
DISCUSSION
Under CPLR § 3102(c), pre-action discovery is permissible where a petitioner
demonstrates a necessity to preserve evidence that may otherwise be lost or compromised. Courts
have consistently recognized that preservation orders serve the dual purposes of ensuring access
160788/2024 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSHUA GERSON, AS EXECUTOR OF Page 2 of 4 THE ESTATE OF AKIKO OMI, DECEASED vs. PORTER, WILLIAM J. ET AL Motion No. 001
2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 160788/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2024
to justice and preventing the destruction or alteration of key evidence (Stewart v. NYC Transit
Auth., 112 AD2d 939 [2d Dept. 1985]).
Here, petitioner has established that the vehicle and its EDR data constitute critical
evidence. Respondents’ willingness to allow access does not obviate the need for a formal
preservation order, particularly in light of the potential for inadvertent spoliation once the vehicle
is returned to service. The court finds persuasive petitioner’s reliance on Spriggins, where similar
circumstances warranted preservation of a vehicle.
Petitioner’s requests for roadway maintenance records, progress photos, and 911
recordings are reasonable given their potential relevance to establishing contributory negligence
or hazardous conditions. Courts have permitted such discovery where the information is specific
and not overly broad (Green v. Green's Auto Gear & Parts Co., 35 AD2d 924 [1st Dept. 1970]).
That said, the court agrees with respondents that requests for dash cam footage and internal
cameras are moot as no such devices were present. However, these moot claims do not undermine
the necessity of granting the other relief sought.
Given the importance of timely evidence preservation and to balance respondents’ business
interests, the court grants petitioner’s requests for preservation of records and timely inspection.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that respondents Jurist Influence Group, LLC, and William
J. Porter shall provide access to the vehicle and its EDR data for inspection and download within
30 days of this decision;1 and it is further
1 By representation from counsel, the inspection has been scheduled for December 4, 2024. After the completion of the inspection, the subject vehicle can return to service, usage, and circulation. 160788/2024 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSHUA GERSON, AS EXECUTOR OF Page 3 of 4 THE ESTATE OF AKIKO OMI, DECEASED vs. PORTER, WILLIAM J. ET AL Motion No. 001
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 160788/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2024
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that once respondents Jurist Influence Group, LLC, and
William J. Porter provide access to the vehicle and its EDR data for inspection and download, the
vehicle can return to service, usage, and circulation; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that respondents are directed to preserve and shall not
transfer, erase, delete, allow to be automatically erased, transferred or deleted, tamper or otherwise
alter or interfere with any information or data, electronically stored or otherwise, concerning the
items of evidence listed in petitioner’s Order to Show Cause; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the municipal respondents shall preserve and shall not
transfer, erase, delete, allow to be automatically erased, transferred or deleted, tamper or otherwise
alter or interfere with any requested roadway and incident records, including unredacted 911
recordings; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that failure to comply with this order may result in
sanctions.
This constitutes the decision, order, and judgment of the court.
12/3/2024 DATE HASA A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 34260(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gerson-v-porter-nysupctnewyork-2024.