Ortega v. New York City Transit Authority

Ortega, 2025 NY Slip Op 02596 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · April 30, 2025 · No. Index No. 502824/16

Summary

This New York Appellate Division decision reviews orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County, compelling defendants to produce discovery related to their affirmative defense of qualified immunity in a personal injury action arising from a subway accident. The court affirmed the lower court's exercise of discretion in directing the defendants to fully respond to specific items in the plaintiff's demand for a bill of particulars under CPLR 3124. The cross-appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
GENOVESI, J.P.; BRATHWAITE NELSON; LANDICINO; HOM, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
April 30, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 502824/16
Procedural posture
Defendants appealed an order compelling discovery of qualified‑immunity defenses; plaintiff cross‑appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discovery order and dismissed the cross‑appeal.
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Aglisberto Ortega v. New York City Transit Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Randy Nicoletti
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

discovery disputecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil proceduretortscivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in ordering the defendants to produce discovery related to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity under CPLR 3124.
  2. Whether the cross‑appeal should be dismissed under 22 NYCRR 1250.10(a).

Holdings

  1. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under CPLR 3101(a) and CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants to fully respond to items 7(a)‑7(g) of the plaintiff's demand for a bill of particulars.
  2. The cross‑appeal was dismissed as a matter of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(a).

Key quotations

CPLR 3101(a) provides that [t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. (673)
'The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's discretion is broad because it is familiar with the actions before it, and its exercise should not be disturbed on appeal unless it was improvidently exercised.' (723)
To the extent that this portion of the plaintiff's demand for a bill of particulars as to affirmative defenses sought amplification of the defendants' affirmative defenses in their answer, the demand was proper (see Gorbatov v. Tsirelman, 206 AD3d 887, 890). (890)

Factual background

The plaintiff was injured when he fell onto the tracks at the Lorimer Street station in Brooklyn and was struck by a subway train. The defendants raised an affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The plaintiff moved, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to compel the defendants to produce all discovery related to that defense, including a bill of particulars.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Kings County, issued an order on June 15, 2022 granting the plaintiff's CPLR 3124 motion to compel discovery of the defendants' qualified‑immunity defense. The court reaffirmed that order on reargument in a February 6, 2023 order. Both orders were appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…