Dayaram v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dayaram v City of New York 2017 NY Slip Op 32791(U) June 20, 2017 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 13769/14 Judge: Kevin J. Kerrigan 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. [* 1] 13769!201• ORDER SIGNED SEOUENCE "'6 P~e 1 of4 0) Short Form Order I cof SUPREME COURrf OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NTY OF QUEENS Present: Hon. Kevin J. Kerrigan 1 Justice -------------------------------------------L---------------X THAKOOR DAYARAM and STE~LA DAYARAM, I l IAS PART 10 IndexNo. 13769114 Motion Date: 3/1117 PIJintiffs, I Motion Cal. No. -2.L_ I - against - Seq.#: _6_ I THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEWIYORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, I ALPHONSE L. LANDI, 1199 SEIU, UNITED HEALTH CARE WORKERS EAST and GERARD J. CADET, I Defendants. --------------------------------------------1_--------------x 1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCAWE WORKERS EAST and GERARD J. CADET, \ Thir~-Party Plaintiffs, - against \ I MERENGUELIMO & CAR SERVfCE INC. and MERENGUE CAR SERVICE, I ' Thira-Party Defendants. I -----------------------------------------------------------x . I I The following papers numbered _l_ to _ill_ read on this motion by defendants/third-party plaintiffs, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East and Gerard I J. Cadet (hereinafter, "movants") for fin order compell ing the deposition of New York City Department of Sanitation Supeniisor Michael Ingrassia by a date certain, and compelling defendants, The City of New York, New York City Department of Sanitation and Alphonse L. Landi, to provide allloutst~nding discovery. Ponted 11JOJ2018 [* 2] 13i69120H ORDER SIGNED SEQUENCE 116 P.ige 2 of 4 Papers Numbered Notice of Motion - Affidavits - Exttibits .. .... ...... ...... ..... ..... ... ...... ......... I-5 Ans. Affs. - Exhibits ................ :.... L ................................................... 6-8 Reply Affs. - Exhibits ····················l····················································· 9 - IO I Upon the papers filed in support1 ofthe within motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, the within motitjn is determined as follows: I Plaintiff Thakoor Dayaram allegbdly sustained injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident on South Conduit Avenue ~t Cohancy Street in Queens County, New York at 12:28 a.m. on December 15, 2013. \ During the course of depositions\of witnesses on behalf of defendant, The City of Ne\v York ("City"), it was learned that one, Michael Ingrassia, a Supervisor with defendant, New York Department of Sanitatiorl ("NYDS"), was the "supervisor on scene," and the first NYDS employee to respond to ~he scene of the subject accident. In addition, from the deposition of NYDS Safety Offo:er Anika O'Neal, it was offered by her that she had acquired information from Supervispr Ingrassia regarding the happening of the accident, including what time he (Supervisor Ingrassia) arrived, where NYDS Supervisor Landi and plaintiff were at the time of the accident, the actions of NYDS Supervisor Landi at .the time of the accident, where the ihvolved vehicles finally came to rest, plaintiffs injuries, and who went to the hospidt. Furthermore, it appears that Supervisor Ingrassia signed the NYDS "Official Accident Report," which included a diagram drawn by him, and that Supervisor Ingrassia filled dut the MV-104 form of Supervisor Landi. Safety I Officer O'Neal further testified that ~upervior Ingrassia was the investigative officer. I In addition to the preceding, Safeb' Officer O' Neal testified that NYDS Supervisors receive a "booklet of safety orders" tiegarding training or safety guidelines, which includes a section on safe driving ana vehicle operation, a copy of which is given to all NYDS employees. l In light of the preceding, movantd sought a deposition of NYDS Supervisor Michael Ingrassia and, by Supplemental Dem~nd for Authorizations dated August 3 1, 201 6, seek "[a] copy of the safety orders bookleU training and safety guidelines provided to I Department of Sanitation Employees[' (hereinafter, "the safety manual"). I Movants' deposition request and qiscovery demand having been rebuffed, movants now seek an order compelling the requested deposition and production of the safety manual. I I I I I Pnnted 1.'JCl/2018 [* 3] 1376112014 ORDER SIGNED SEQUENCE 16 Page 3of 4 I I I I I I In opposition, the defendants, City, NYDS and Alphonse L. Landi ("Landi'), argue, I inter alia, that movants have not esiablished their entitlement to a deposition of NYDS Supervisor Ingrassia, and that this court's order (Ritholtz, J.), dated May 11 , 2015, resolved the issue of entitlement to \the safety manual. 1 With regard to movants' claimed need for a deposition of Supervisor Ingrassia, in order to establish that an additional \deposition is necessary, "the moving party must show ( l) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there ! a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for is depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case" (see, Zollner v. City ofNew rbrk, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627 [2d Dept. 1994); see also, I Bentze v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 A.D.3d967, 968 [2d Dept. 2010]). 1 I I A review of the transcript of ~s.\ O 'Neal's deposition testimony demonstrates, to the court's satisfaction, that movants hare established that said individual possessed less than sufficient knowledge with regard to ~he information that was the subject of movants' inquiry in light of her representations surrounding the involvement and role of NYDS I Supervisor Ingrassia. Furthermore, in light of Ms. O'Neal's testimony, this court find s that there is a substantial likelihood that NYDS Supervisor Ingrassia does possess information which is material and n~cessary to the movants' defense of this action. I . Beyond that, the court notes that defendants City, NYDS and Landi have offered movants the deposition of NYDS subervisor Ingrassia, albeit in exchange for a witness, P. 0. Rogers, that is allegedly retire~, and who they were directed to produce by the above-cited order of May I I , 2015. 1 I I Furthermore, with regard to the claim that the order of May 11 , 20 IS, resol ved the I question of movants' entitlement to the safety manual, this court notes, initially, that the order is silent with regard to the movknts' earlier demand for the safety manual, and that the order permits the parties to make ~ost-deposition discovery demands. I As such, movants served their post-deposition demand for, inter alia, the safety manual on August 31, 2016. NotabtYi, defendants City, NYDS and Landi did not respond to same until December 2, 2016, at which time they objected to the demand for the safety I manual as overbroad and irrelevant. Since the objection to the subject demand was not served within twenty (20) days of se~ice, as required by CPLR 3122 (a), this court's review '" is limited to determining whether the requested material is privileged under CPLR 310 I or the demand is palpabl~ improper"' (see Wilner v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 155, 168 [2d. Dept. 20 IO], citiAg Coville v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 30 AD3d I I I 1 See Orcutt e-mail dated Septemb~r 23, 2016, and affirmation in opposition at ii 12. I I I Pnnted 11 30/2018 [* 4] 13769~01• ORDER SIGNED SEQUENCE "6 Page4of 4 I 744, 745 [3d Dept. 2006], quoting McMahon v. Aviette Agency, 30 I AD2d 820, 821 [3d Dept. 2003]) : While defendants City, NYDS aAd Landi offer that the safety manual is voluminous, they have not made a claim that the~ information therein is privileged, nor does this court find the demand to be palpably improper in light of Safety Officer O'Neal's testimony. In light of the preceding, it is I ORDERED that the within motion, insofar as same seeks to compel a deposition of NYDS Supervisor Michael Ingrassi~, is granted to the extent that said individual shall be produced for a deposition within forty-five (45) days of service of the within order with notice of entry; and it is further I ORDERED that defendants CitY,, NYDS and Landi shall comply with movants' Supplemental Demand for Authorizhtions dated August 31, 2016, by providing the safety manual within thirty (30) days of service of the within order with notice 0 entry. Dated: June 20, 2017 Kevin J. Kerrigan, J.S.C. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

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.