Thomas v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2024 NY Slip Op 31130(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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