John v. New York City Transit Authority

John, 2025 NY Slip Op 05224 (Appellate Division Second Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Department · October 1, 2025 · No. Index No. 519780/17

Summary

This Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court order compelling the New York City Transit Authority to produce bus driver training manuals and an additional unnamed witness for deposition in a personal injury lawsuit. Applying CPLR 3101(a), the court reversed the order, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the requested discovery was material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. The court noted that because the bus driver was acting within the scope of employment, negligent hiring and retention claims were barred, rendering the training manuals irrelevant. Additionally, the court found the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion by ordering the production of an unspecified additional witness.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Writing for the Court
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.; Robert J. Miller, J.; Lillian Wan, J.; Laurence L. Love, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
October 1, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 519780/17
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Kings County granting plaintiff's motion to compel production of training manuals and an additional unnamed witness.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
New York City Transit Authority v. Carmen John
Disposition
reversed

Topics

discovery disputecivil procedureappellate procedurepersonal injury

Practice areas

civil proceduretorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to produce its driver training manuals under CPLR 3101(a).
  2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the production of an additional unnamed witness for deposition.

Holdings

  1. The appellate division reversed the trial court's order, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the usefulness and reason of the requested training manuals and that the order to produce an additional unnamed witness exceeded the scope of the discovery request.

Key quotations

The essential test is 'usefulness and reason' (McMahon v. Manners, 158 AD3d at 617). (at 1)
"It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims..." (101CO, LLC v. Sand Land Corp., 189 AD3d at 944). (at 1)
"The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court" (Rrengo v. New York City Transit Authority, 204 AD3d at 1050). (at 1)

Factual background

On June 1, 2017, Carmen John was injured while standing in a moving bus operated by the New York City Transit Authority when the driver abruptly applied the brakes, causing her to fall. The plaintiff filed suit in October 2017 seeking damages for personal injuries. The defendant identified the driver, Diran Sansui, and produced him for deposition.

Procedural history

The trial court ordered the defendant to produce its driver training manuals and to produce an additional unnamed witness for deposition. The defendant appealed, arguing the order exceeded the scope of CPLR 3101(a).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…