The opinion
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]