Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth.

Annotate this Case
Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth. 2011 NY Slip Op 09190 Decided on December 20, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6101 105416/10

[*1]Roberto Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

New York City Transit Authority, Defendant-Appellant, Charles Johnson, Defendant.




Office of the General Counsel, New York City Transit
Authority, Brooklyn, (Kavita K. Bhatt of counsel), for appellant.
Edward Friedman, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered September 14, 2010, which denied the motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed.

Plaintiff alleges that while he was a passenger on the subway, he witnessed an individual threatening a woman. When he reported this to defendant Johnson, who was the conductor, Johnson took no action. The individual continued threatening the woman, which prompted plaintiff to pull the emergency cord on the subway car. Johnson then called the police and according to plaintiff, when the police responded, Johnson falsely told them that plaintiff had punched and kicked him. Plaintiff was arrested, charged and subsequently processed through the court system. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of claim and his complaint against NYCTA included causes of action for negligent hiring and supervision of Johnson.

Plaintiff's notice of claim was very detailed, specifying the date and the time that he was traveling on an E train from Manhattan to Queens, and that the conductor "John Doe" called the police and had plaintiff arrested by Police Officer Anthony Rosales. The notice was sufficiently detailed to enable the City to investigate the occurrence (see generally Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63, 68 [2007]) and to understand the nature of the claim (see Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 393 [2000]). Moreover, the notice asserted the claims of negligent hiring and supervision, thus providing defendant, who had the ability to ascertain the identity of the conductor and to examine the conductor's personnel files, the opportunity to investigate those allegations (compare Shmueli v New York City Police Department, 295 AD2d 271 [2002] [dismissing claim against
district attorney for negligent hiring where notice of claim failed to assert any facts from which claim could be gleaned]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. [*2]

ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2011

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.