Alamin v Uddin

[*1] Alamin v Uddin 2008 NY Slip Op 50719(U) [19 Misc 3d 1115(A)] Decided on April 1, 2008 Supreme Court, Kings County Lewis, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 1, 2008
Supreme Court, Kings County

Hassan O.G. Alamin, Plaintiff,

against

Shake Uddin, et ano., Defendants.



38425/02



Plaintiff Attorney:Hassan Alamin, Pro se

Defendant AttorneyKenneth M. Andresen, Esq

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman, & Dicker LLP

Yvonne Lewis, J.

Plaintiff Hassan O.G. Alamin moves for "renew and modification of court's prior decision pursuant to CPLR 2221." The court treats the instant motion as one seeking an order, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e), granting leave to renew plaintiff's prior application for an order, pursuant CPLR 1001 (a), joining United Management Group, Inc. (United) as a necessary party.

This is an action, commenced on August 22, 2002, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff. Although the underlying facts are not clear from the submissions of the parties, plaintiff apparently commenced the instant action against Shake Uddin (Uddin) and Aten Taxi Inc. (Aten), who are, respectively, the driver and owner of a New York City taxi that was involved, along with plaintiff, in a motor vehicle accident.

Extensive motion practice ensued. On or about May 20, 2007, plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, moved for joinder as noted above. Although the submissions were inartfully drafted, this court noted plaintiff's main assertions. Mr. Alamin argued that Aten is an entity that exists primarily to hide the assets of a second entity, United. He maintained that Aten is "inactive" and no longer exists as a legitimate entity. He also contended that Uddin has "disappeared" and as a consequence, plaintiff will not be able to seek legal redress against him. Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that he has found information that suggests that the owner of the New York City Taxi and [*2]Limousine Commission medallion that was assigned to the subject taxi is actually United. Mr. Alamin concluded that based on these contentions, United should be joined, pursuant to CPLR 1001, as a necessary party.

By order dated August 27, 2007, this court denied the plaintiff's prior motion. The court noted that notwithstanding any arguments about the owner or manager of the subject New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission medallion, Aten was the undisputed registered owner of the subject taxi and was thus presumptively vicariously liable for the acts of Uddin, the subject driver (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388; see also Forte v New York City Tr. Auth., 2 AD3d 489 490 [2003]; Leotta v Plessinger, 8 NY2d 449, 461 [1960]; Walls v Zuvic, 113 AD2d 936 [1985]). This court, assuming arguendo, that United could be liable to the plaintiff, further reasoned that any liability on the part of United would be joint and several along with the liability of Aten. The court, therefore, concluded that United was at most a joint tortfeasor and not a necessary party under CPLR 1001 (a).

In support of the instant motion for leave to renew, Hassan Alamin asserts that he has copies of "Self-Authenticating Documents" that indicate the relationship between Aten and United. Specifically, he notes that according to the records of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, the subject medallion ("Medallion 5G32") is owned by Aten but managed by United. He concludes that based on this "new evidence," his motion for leave to renew should be granted. Plaintiff asserts other arguments that are not germane to the issue of leave to renew.

The court denies the instant motion. CPLR 2221 (e) states, in applicable part:

"A motion for leave to renew: . . .2. shall be based upon new facts not offered on the

prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there

has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination; and 3. shall

contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior

motion."It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (Mi Ja Lee v Glicksman, 14 AD3d 669 [2005]; see also Daniel Perla Assoc. v Ginsberg, 256 AD2d 303 [1998]; Loland v City of New York, 212 AD2d 674 [1995]). The motion can be granted only if movant presents new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or demonstrates that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination (see e.g. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. v Assessor of Town of Haverstraw, 304 AD2d 668 [2003]).

CPLR 1001 ("Necessary joinder of parties") provides, in applicable part, as follows:

"(a) Parties who should be joined. Persons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants. When a person who should join as a plaintiff refuses to do so he may be made a defendant."Here, the alleged new facts would not change this court's prior determination. This court reiterates that, assuming arguendo that United is potentially liable to Mr. Alamin, United is a joint tortfeasor which is not a necessary or indispensable party for the purposes of CPLR 1001. Indeed, "joint tort-feasors are not necessary parties" (Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124 AD2d 582, 583 [1986]; see also [*3]Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 62 [1983]; Siskind v Levy, 13 AD2d 538, 539 [1961]). Given that it is undisputed that Aten Taxi Inc. owns and registered the subject vehicle, plaintiff has failed to identify any reason for this court to deviate from the general rule that a joint tortfeasor is neither a necessary or indispensable party.

In any event, the court notes that it is unlikely that United, the managing agent of the subject medallion, would be liable to plaintiff (see e.g. Alam v Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc., 16 Misc 3d 1110[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51377[U] [2007] [dismissing negligence and products liability causes of action against managing agent of taxi medallion]). For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for leave to renew is denied. The remaining arguments are rendered moot.The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.

E N T E R,

J. S. C.