Walker v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Walker v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. 2022 NY Slip Op 32695(U) August 9, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 160839/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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. 160839/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 33 --------·---------------------X KELLIE WALKER, Plaintiff, INDEX NO. 160839/2021 MOTION DATE July 28, 2022 - V - TRI BOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS, VICTOR MUALLEM, SHARON GALLO-KOTCHER MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. -----------------X HON. MARY V. ROSADO: The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 DISMISSAL were read on this motion to/for Oral argument took place on July 28, 2022 with Jeanne M. Christensen appearing for Plaintiff Kellie Walker ("Plaintiff'') and Helene Hechtkopf appearing on behalf of all Defendants. Upon the foregoing documents, it is decided and ordered as follows below. I. Procedural Background On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY case") (NYSCEF Doc. 17). Defendants in that case moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 1, 2021 pursuant to FRCP 12(b). In a decision dated November 18, 2021, SDNY dismissed Plaintiffs Title VII, Section 1981 and Section 1983 claims and did not analyze Plaintiffs State law claims but rather refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs State law claims (id.). Plaintiff then filed a Complaint in Supreme Court, First Department on December 2, 2021. Defendants made this pre-Answer motion to dismiss on January 18, 2022. Defendants filed their I 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 1] 1 of 11 Page 1 of 11 ! FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 motion to dismiss arguing that (l) Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from asserting discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation claims; (2) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for race or gender discrimination, retaliation, and under the gender motivated violence act ("GMV"); (3) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against individual defendants; and (4) Plaintiffs tort claims should be dismissed because they are barred by the Workers' Compensation Law and failed to comply with the statutory notice of claim requirement (NYSCEF Doc. 7). Plaintiff in opposition argues that (1) she is not collaterally estopped from asserting her claims; (2) she has adequately pleaded all of her claims, and (3) Plaintiffs tort claims are not barred by the Workers' Compensation Law and do comply with the statutory notice of claim requirement. II. Factual Background Plaintiff Kellie Walker ("Plaintiff') is a 50-year-old Black woman who is a practicing attorney and has been employed by Defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority ("MTA") since 2018 (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at ,i 1). Plaintiffs supervisor was Defendant Victor Muallem ("Muallem") a 60-year-old white man who is a director of labor relations at the MT A (id. at ,i 37). Plaintiffs colleagues who also worked under Muallem were Alexandria Jean-Pierre ("JeanPierre") who is a 40-year-old Black woman, and Eduardo Miyashiro ("Miyashiro") (id. at ,i 36). Defendant Sharon Gallo-Kotcher ("Gallo-Kotcher") is a 61-year-old white female who is the vice president of labor relations at the MT A and has the authority to direct Plaintiffs work activities, assign her job responsibilities, and monitor ~er performance (id. at ,i 37). Plaintiff alleges that in the Spring of 2019, Muall~m began to direct severe animosity towards Plaintiff and Jean-Pierre, the two Black females on;his team, while grooming Miyashiro for promotion (id. at ,i,i 44-47). In April of 2019, Plaintiff alleges Muallem 's animosity resulted in 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 2] 2 of 11 Page 2 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 emails with "unwarranted and gratuitous criticisms about Ms. Walker's work product, copying Gallo-Kotcher" while he would similarly "make belittling comments to [plaintiff]" (id. at ,r 49). In November of 2019, Plaintiff alleges that Muallem went into Plaintiffs office, and with the door open for everyone to hear, started screaming at the top orhis lungs criticizing Plaintiffs work product (id. at ,r 51 ). Plaintiff further alleges that during an arbitration hearing on January 8, 202_0, Muallem, in front of the MT A's clients, opposing counsel, and Arbitrator John Sands, verbally abused Plaintiff by interjecting and shouting at her while she tried to give an opening statement (id. at ,r,r 54-56). Allegedly, Muallem was shouting so ferociously that spit flew out of mouth and Arbitrator Sands had to call Plaintiff, Muallem, and opposing counsel out of the room to discuss Muallem's behavior (id. at ,r,r 58-61). Plaintiff alleges that Muallem never treated any male employees in a similar manner and alleges that Muallem subjected Plaintiff to this behavior because Plaintiff is a Black I woman (id.). Plaintiff claims that a month later, on February 3, 2020, Muallem struck Plaintiff with the back of his hand in the presence of opposing c~mnsel, Arbitrator Dan Brent, a· court reporter, and a superintendent of the MTA, because he was unhappy with Plaintiffs crossexamination of a witness (id. at ,r,r 65-68). Plaintiff again alleges that Muallem would have never physically assaulted her had she been a man and that sh~ was subjected to this alleged act of violence because she is a Black woman (id. at ,r,r 69-72). On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a workplace violence incident form to GalloKotcher, and on February 5th, Plaintiff filed an incident report with the New York City Police Department (id. at ,r,r 80-81 ). On February 6th, Plaintiff obtained a medical note to take a temporary leave of absence from her employment (id. at if82). 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 3] 3 of 11 Page 3 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 Plaintiff retained counsel around the end of February and sent a letter of representation to the MTA, after which Plaintiff alleges that the MTA, and specifically Gallo-Kotcher, began a campaign of retaliation (id at ,r87). Plaintiff alleges that ~ct~ of retaliation included comments by Gallo-Kotcher on the time she would clock in arid out of work, requesting a report on the status of all of her cases· within an hour, and making plaintiff go into 'the office to conduct virtual litigation as Covid-19 cases were rising in November of 2020 even though Plaintiff allegedly suffers from underlying health conditions ·(id. at ,r,r 87-88, 94). It is ~lleged Gallo-Kotcher's justification for making Plaintiff go into the office was for "ease of collaboration", but Plaintiff alleges that this was just a pre-text for Gallo-Kotcher's retaliation especially because all "collaboration" with other counsel occurred virtually and not in-person (id. at ,r 95). Plaintiff also alleges that after she sent her letter of representation, Gallo-Kotcher would repeatedly make reference to Muallem while speaking with Plaintiff to provoke her intentionally, causing Plaintiff to feel anxious and shake (id at ,r 99). Plaintiff states that her .workplace violence complaint caused the MTA to investigate the incident; however, they found "'insufficient evidence to substantiate Ms. Walker's allegations' without providing any justification or information as to how the investigation was conducted" (id. at ,r 112). On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a charge ,of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") (id. at ,r 116). Plaintiff alleges the retaliation. continued after filing the EEOC claim, alleging that when she had to come back into the office 50% of the time starting September 20, 2021, she was forced to come in on the same days as Muallem even though she requested the ability to stagger her workdays with Muallem so she would not have to be in his presence (id at ,r 117). On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff was allegedly informed by G~llo-Kotcher that she had to relocate to an office 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEI.E AUTHORITY, D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET Al Motion No. 001 [* 4] 4 of 11 Page 4 of 11 .! FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 extremely close to Muallem and when Plaintiff requested she remain in her .current office to avoid being close to Muallem, she allegedly received no respon~e and was forced to move extremely close to her alleged abuser (id. at ,r 118-122). III. Discussion A. Motion to Dismiss Standard As recently reiterated by the Court of Appeals, when reviewing a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must give the Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings and determines only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sassi v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236, 239 [2021]). All factual allegations must be accepted as true (Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v Landmark Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 172, 174 [1st Dept 2004]). Employment discrimination cases are generally reviewed under a liberal notice pleading standard, meaning that a Plaintiff need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, but must only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds (Petit v Department of Education of City of New York, 177 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2019]; Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 145 [lstDept 2009]; Gershenson v Local 52, 2022 NY Slip Op 32546[U] [Sup Ct, New York County 2022]). B. Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel applies when "(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, artd (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits" (Conason v Megan Holding, LLC, 25 NY3d 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL ' Motion No. 001 [* 5] 5 of 11 Page 5 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1193 [2015]; Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1985]) Collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine, grounded in the facts and realities of a particular litigation, and is not to be applied rigidly. Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303 [2001]; Tydings v Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP, 43 AD3d 680, 684 [1st Dept 2007]; Pustilnik v Battery Park City Authority, 71 Misc.3d 1058, 1069 [Sup Ct, New York County 2021]). "The fundamental inquiry is whether re-litigation should be permitted in a particular case in light of fairness to the parties, conservation of the resources of the courts and the litigants, and the societal interests in consistent and accurate results:" Buechel_at 304. The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must show that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in the prior action against a party, or one in privity with a party, while the party to be precluded bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination (id.). Defendant argues that "where a federal court has dismissed federal discrimination claims, state and city discrimination claims that are based upon the same theories are precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and must be dismissed." However, the case upon which Defendant relies to assert such a rule does not mandate state and city discrimination claims be precluded by collateral estoppel (Emmons v Broome County, 180 AD3d 1213, 1216 [3d Dept 2020] ["where ... a federal court dismisses federal claims but declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over analogous state law claims, the federal determination may be dispositive of the state claims based upon principles of collateral estoppel"] (emphasis added)). While Defendant also relies on Wiltz v New York City (191 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2021]) in support of its assertion that collateral estoppel should preclude Plaintiff's state law claims, the Court finds that case to be distinguishable and inapplicable. In Wiltz, the pro se Plaintiff's 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL ' Motion No. 001 [* 6] 6 of 11 Page 6 of 11 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 Complaint containing, amongst other causes of action, claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws for alleged· disability discrimination, was dismissed for his failure to appear at a status conference. The First Department, applying the standard to vacate dismissal rather than the motion to dismiss standard, found there was no meritorious reason to vacate since the Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his state law claims in his prior federal action (id) . Here, while Title VII claims were addressed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's motion to dismiss standard, the Plaintiff's state law claims were not addressed at all and no discovery took place since the district court refused to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and the case was dismissed on the pleadings. Therefore, due to the different procedural posture between this case and Wilti, the Court finds Wiltz to be unpersuasive and inapplicable to the facts here. Furthermore, the New York City Human Rights Law's ("NYCHRL") pleading standard is significantly more liberal than the plausibility standard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or even the CPLR's notice-pleading standard for claims under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") (Harris v Structuretech New York, Inc. , 191 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2021]; O'Rourke v National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., 176 AD3d517, 518 [1st Dept2019]; Williams vNew York City Haus. Auth. , 61 AD3d 62, 65-69 [1st Dept 2009]; Pustilnik at 1069; Gershenson vLocal 52, 2022 NY Slip Op 32546[U] at* 11 [Sup Ct, New York County 2022]). Moreover, New York Local Law 35 ·§ 1 expressly instructs courts to interpret NYCHRL liberally and independently of state and federal anti-discrimination laws in order to create an independent body of jurisprudence for the NYCHRL that is maximally protective of civil rights in .all circumstances. Therefore, "allegations that would be insufficient to state a federal claim might well be enough to state a cause of action under the NYCHRL" or under NYSHRL's noticepleading standard. Because the pleading standards under Title VII compared to NYCHRL and 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL ' · Motion No. 001 [* 7] 7 of 11 Page 7 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 NYSHRL are materially different, Defendants' collaterai estoppel argument is inapplicable (Pustilnik v Battery Park City Authority at 1069-1070). C. Sufficiency of Plaintiff's Race or Gender Discrimination Claims Defendants asserts that even· if Plaintiff's claims are not collaterally estopped, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because they fail to state a claim. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims fail because she has not alleged that the adverse or different treatment she suffered occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. However, accepting all of ,. Plaintiff's allegations as true and granting Plaintiff all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the Complaint as this Court must, the Court finds Defendants' argument is without merit, as Plaintiff repeatedly alleged she was subject to more intense scrutiny, passed over for certain positions or involvement in meetings, and even was subjected to physical violence because of her status as a Black women while similarly situated men were never subjected to such treatment in the workplace. Moreover, the standard for determining liability for discrimination-based claims under the ~YCHRL is to ensure that discrimination plays no role in the disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals in the workplace (Williams v New York City Housing Authority, 61 AD3d 62, 76 [1st Dept 2009]). The NYSHRL, which was amended in 2019, mirrors the "play no-role" standard under the NYCHRL (Hosking v Mem 'l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 186 AD3d 68, 64 n.l [1st Dept 2020] ["this amendment is remarkably similar to the City HRL's Restoration Act"]; Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d 24, 35 [2d .D ept 2020]). Plaintiff's allegations of physical and verbal abuse directed towards her, as a Black woman, that were not directed towards any similarly situated men in her office, give rise to the inference that discrimination played a role 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEil AUTHORITY, D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL · Motion No. 001 [* 8] 8 of 11 Page 8 of 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 in Muallem's treatment of Plaintiff thereby satisfying her pleading standard under NYCHRL and NYSHRL. Plaintiff has also sufficiently pled retaliation. Plaintiff has demonstrated she engaged in protected activity by submitting a work place violence form and an incident report to NYPD after she was allegedly physically abused by Muallem, and was then retaliated against by allegedly being relocated to an office in extremely close proximity to the individual she alleged physically abused her, and was forced to come into the office during asurge of Covid-19 to conduct virtual litigation despite her underlying health condition while other similarly situated individuals were allowed to work remotely (0 'Rourke v National F?reign Trade Council, Inc., 176 AD3d 517 (1st Dept 2019]; Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582, 585-586 (1st Dept 2018]; Albunio v City of New York, 67 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2009]). Under the standard upon which pleadings are reviewed in a pre-Answer motion to dismiss, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that these alleged retaliations would reasonably deter a person from reporting their superior for alleged physical abuse. D. Aiding and Abetting Claims Defendants argues that Plaintiffs· "aiding and abetting" claims against Muallem arid GalloKotcher must fail because (1) no discrimination took place and (2) an individual cannot aid and abet themself. The Court finds Defendants' first argumenLunpersuasive for the reasons set for in section II(B). As to Defendants' second argument, since it is alleged that Muallem's own actions gave rise to the discrimination claim, he cannot also b~ held liable for aiding and abetting, therefore, Plaintiffs "aiding and abetting" claim against Muallem must be dismissed (Hardwick v Auriemma, 116 AD3d 465,468 [1st Dept 2014]). However, the Court finds Plaintiffs allegations 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, D/8/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 9] Page 9 of 11 9 of 11 J ..... FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 against Gallo-Kotcher sufficiently state a claim for aiding and abetting m violation of the NYSHRL (Griffin v Sirva, Inc., 29 NY3d 174, 188 [2017]). E. Gender Motivated Violence Act Plaintiff has similarly stated a claim under the Gender Motivated Violence Act. The GMV allows a civil cause of.action for an "injur[y] by an individual who commit[ted] a crime of violence motivated by gender." (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §10~1104). A crime of violence is defined as "an act ... that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony ... if the conduct presents a serious risk of physical injury to another, whether or not those acts actually'resulted in criminal charges." A crime of violence motivated by gender is one "committed because of gender or on the basis of gender, and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim's gender." (N.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 101103). Because the Court must accept Plaintiffs allegations as true on a motion to dismiss, and it is alleged Muallem physically struck the Plaintiff and had .never struck a similarly situated male employee, the Court, giving the Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings, finds that Plaintiff sufficiently states a claim under the GMV A. (Sassi · · v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236 [2021]; Eckhart v Fox News Network, LLC, 2021 WL 4124616 at *25 [SDNY 2021]). F. Plaintiff's Tort Claims Defendants next assert that Plaintiffs tort claims must be dismissed for its failure to •comply with the statutory notice of claim requirement. An authority's knowledge of an incident is insufficient to constitute notice of a plaintiffs intent to file a civil suit based on a negligence claim (Rosenbaum v City of New York, 8 NY3d 1 [2006]; Keeney v New York City Housing Authority, 168 AD3d 581, 581-582 [1st Dept 2019]; Silic~to v Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc., 1.12 AD3d 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, D/B/A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 10] 10 of 11 Page 10 of 11 INDEX NO. 160839/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2022 04:35 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2022 464 [1st Dept 2013]). Because filing a timely Notice of Claim is a condition precedent to bringing a suit against Defendant MT A and its employees, and compliance with the written notice of claim requirement is mandatory and strict, Plaintiffs claims for assault, battery, and negligent supervision are dismissed without prejudice (Vyrkin v Triboro Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 2021 WL 797654 at *6 (SDNY 2021); Guillan v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth., 202 AD2d 472, 473474 [2d Dept 1994]). Based on the above, the Court finds no reason to analyze Defendants' argument that these claims would be barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh causes of action is denied; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Third and Sixth causes of action is granted only to the extent those causes of action are dismissed as to Defendant Muallem; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth causes of action are dismissed, without prejudice. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. 8/9/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: HON MARY V. CASE DISPOSED GRANTED • x , NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED x GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 160839/2021 WALKER, KELLIE vs. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY D/B/A ' METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ET AL Motion No. 001 [* 11] 11 of 11 ROSADO, J.S.C. • • OTHER REFERENCE Page 11 of 11

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.