Preview
(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 0271972015 04:36 PM INDEX NO. 510806/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2015
FILE #: 8538
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
tee nee nee eee enn xX
MARY ANN TARANTO,
NOTICE OF MOTION
Plaintiff,
Index No.: 510806/2014
-against-
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE,
Defendants.
nance nee ence ennnnneennnnnnneeeennnnnennmennnnenennnennnene! xX
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affirmation of Alexandr Griss, Esq.,
duly sworn to on Thursday, February 19, 2015, upon the duly sworn Affidavit of Merit of
MARY ANN TARANTO, and upon all pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the
Plaintiff will move this Court at an IAS Part thereof, to be held at the Courthouse located at 360
Adams Street County of KINGS, City and State of New York, on the 19th day of March, 2015,
at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order ,
pursuant to CPLR §3212 (1) granting Plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, Summary Judgment on
her claims of liability against Defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE
3(2) dismissing all the Defendants claims and affirmative defenses, comparative negligence,
and/or culpable conduct on the part of the Plaintiff; and (3) such other relief as this Court may
deem just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this motion is being served upon you more
than 12 days prior to the return date of the notice. Answering affidavits, if any, are to be served
at least 7 days prior to the return date of the motion.Dated:
TO:
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
February 19, 2015
Yours, etc.,
BARON ASSOCIATES P.C.
ag
Alexandr Griss, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARY ANN TARANTO
2509 Avenue U
Brooklyn, New York 11229
(718) 934-6501
Our File No.: 8538
Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE
1 Metrotech Center, 8th Fl,
Brooklyn, NY 11201FILE #; 8538
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
ween neem nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnennnnnnnnnnnee! x
MARY ANN TARANTO,
AFFIRMATION IN
Plaintiff, SUPPORT
-against- Index No: 510806/2014
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE,
Defendants.
ce ence nen nena nnn annnnnnnnennnnnnenneenene x
Alexandr Griss, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the
State of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:
1. Tam associated with the firm of Baron Associates P.C., attorneys for the plaintiff
herein, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action based upon
my review of the file pertaining to same as maintained by your affirmant’s law office.
2. The instant affirmation is respectfully submitted in support of plaintiffs within
motion seeking an Order, pursuant to CPLR §3212 (1) granting plaintiff's Summary Judgment on
their claim of negligence against defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE;
(2) dismissing defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence and/or culpable conduct
on the part of the plaintiff; and (3} such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
NATURE OF CLAIM
3. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when defendant,
MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently operated a motor vehicle bearing State of New York license
plate number 3D39B, owned by Defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, in which Plaintiff, MARY
ANN TARANTO was a lawful passenger, causing said motor vehicle to crash. It is plaintiff'scontention that these injuries occurred solely and exclusively as a result of the defendant’s
negligence, and nof as the result of any negligence or culpable conduct on the part of the
plaintiff.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4. The within action was brought on behalf of plaintiff, and involves a claim for
negligence resulting in serious damages sustained by plaintiff. Annexed hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit "A" is a copy of Plaintiff's Summons and Verified Complaint.
38. Issue was joined as to defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M.
SIDDIQUE by service of their Answer on or about February 18, 2015, a copy of which is annexed
hereto as Exhibit "B".
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6. Based upon the annexed affidavit of the plaintiff annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”,
and upon the corroborating information in the MV-104AN (“Police Report”), a copy of which is
annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”, as set forth below, it is respectfully submitted that there exists no
genuine issues of material fact which would need to be decided by a jury as the trier of fact; as to
either the negligence of the defendant, or as to the abject absence of any evidence of comparative
negligence or culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, Summary Judgment is
warranted; both as to a finding of negligence by the defendant, and as to dismissal of defendant’s
affirmative defense of comparative negligence and/or culpable conduct on the part of the
plaintiff.ARGUMENT
Standard of Review
9. CPLR §3212 reads, in relevant part, as follows:
“Any party may move for summary judgment in any action, after
issue has been joined... . A motion for summary judgment shall be
supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available
proof, such as depositions and written admissions. The affidavit shall
be by a person having knowledge of the facts; it shall recite ail the
material facts; and it shall show that there is no defense to the cause
of action or that the ... defense has no merit. The motion shall be granted
if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action ... shall
be established sufficiently to warrant the [C]ourt as a matter of law in
directing judgment in favor of any party.”
10. ‘It is well settled that the remedy of summary judgment, though drastic, is
nonetheless appropriate where as in the case at bar, a thorough examination of the merits clearly
demonstrates the absence of any triable issues of fact. See, Vamattam _v. Thomas, 205 A.D.2d
615, 613 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y.A.D., 1994). It is additionally well settled that upon a movant’s
setting out a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and tendering
admissible evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact from the case, the burden then shifts
to the non-moving party opponent to rebut that prima facie showing by presenting evidence in
admissible form establishing the existence of triable issues of fact. See, Function Supply, et al.
v. Progressive Insurance Company, 2005 WL 2807423 (Civ. Ct. Queens County); (citing,
Winegrad v. New_York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985); Alvarez v. Prospect
Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320 (1986); Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980);
Davenport v, County of Nassau, 279 A.D.2d 497 (2d Dep’t 2001); Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182
A.D.2d 268 (2d Dep’t 1992); Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204 (1997); see, also Prince v.
DiBenedetto, 189 A.D.2d 757, 592 N.Y.S.2d 388 (2d Dep’t 1993); Yu_v. Pae, 201 A.D.2d 697,608 N.Y.S.2d 286 (2d Dep’t 1994); Romano v. St, Vincent’s Medical Center of Richmond, 178
A.D.2d 467, 577 N.Y.S.2d 311 (2d Dep’t 1991); Gong v. Gjoni, 294 A.D.2d 648, 741 N.Y.S.2d
600 (3d Dep’t 2002),
11. It is further well settled that summary judgment is permitted for plaintiffs in
negligence cases when there is no conflict in the evidence; where defendant conduct fell far
below any permissible standard of due care; and where plaintiff's conduct was not really
involved, See, O'Callaghan vy. Flitter, 112 A-D.2d 1030, 493 N.Y.S.2d 28 (N.Y.A.D. 2
Dept.,1985). It is additionally well settled that summary judgment shall be granted where there
are no issues of material fact and the evidence requires the Court to direct judgment in favor of
the movant as a matter of law. See, Jackson v. Deer Park Ventures, 2005 WL 2847265 (Sup.Ct.
Kings County); (citing, Friends of Animals, Inc, v. Associated Fur Manufacturers, 46 N.Y.2d
1065 (1979), Lastly, whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent does not prohibit the granting
of summary judgment to plaintiffs on the issue of liability, where the undisputed facts establish
negligence on the part of the defendant. See, Salisbury v. Montgomery Ward Store, 283 A.D.2d
858, 727 N.Y.S.2d 176, (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2001). With particular regard to the latter, and as
more fully set forth below, even should this Court deny the portion of plaintiff's instant motion
seeking dismissal of defendants’ affirmative defense of comparative negligence and/or culpable
conduct of the plaintiff, summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ negligence is still
warranted.
The Affidavit of MARY ANN TARANTO warrants the granting of Summary Judgment
12. It is respectfully submitted that the affidavit of MARY ANN TARANTO,
describes of the facts surrounding the accident which caused the incident, as described in hersworn affidavit, is prima facie evidence of the defendants’ negligence and is sufficient grounds
for the granting of Summary Judgment.
13. In her affidavit, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit "C", MARY ANN
TARANTO, described the incident as occurring on June 20, 2014 as follows: On June 20, 2014 at
approximately 10:00 PM, Plaintiff was a lawful passenger within the automobile operated by
Defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG. See §2. That while being a lawful passenger within said
automobile, Defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, lost control of the motor vehicle and crashed, See
4B.
14. It is further settled that when a plaintiff submits evidence in admissible form,
including his Affidavit, demonstrating that defendant was responsible for the collision, and that
the plaintiff was free from any negligence, that this evidence, which demonstrated that defendant
violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law is sufficient to establish plaintiff's entitlement to judgment
as a matter of law on the issue of which driver was responsible for the accident. See, Griffin v.
Pennoyer, 49 A.D.3d 341, 852 N.Y.8.2d 765 (1st Dep't 2008).
15. Although Griffin, supra, pertained to a defendant's violation of Vehicle and
Traffic Law § 1141, pertaining to left turns at intersections, it is respectfully submitted that the
principle of Griffin applies in the instant case on the issue of plaintiff's burden of proof.
16. Vehicle and Traffic Law §1212 reads, in relevant part, as follows:
“Reckless driving shall mean driving or using any motor
vehicle, motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power
other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof
in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and
proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers
users of the public highway. Reckless driving is prohibited.Every person violating this provision shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.”
17. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(a), reads, in relevant part, as follows:
"No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and
prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential
hazards then existing.”
18. ‘It is respectfully submitted that defendants failure to heed VTL §1212 and VTL
§1180(a) constitutes further prima facie proof of defendants’ negligence within the meaning of
Griffin,
19. It is respectfully submitted that defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA
M. SIDDIQUE, have breached their duty of care by failing to use due care to avoid the accident
as set forth above. It is further submitted that the injuries of the plaintiff MARY ANN
TARANTO were proximately caused by defendant’s breach of said duty.
CONCLUSION
20. It is respectfully submitted that through the sworn affidavit of the Plaintiff, and
the attached MV-104AN, that the Plaintiff has abundantly established prima facie entitlement to
Summary Judgment within the meaning of the case law cited above. It is undisputed that the
Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in operating the motor vehicle as to keep
Plaintiff free from danger. ‘There is undisputed proof of the manner in which the accident
occurred, the Defendants undeniably breached duty to the Plaintiff, by failure to exercise
reasonable care for safety, and it is further undisputed that Plaintiff resultant injuries were
proximately caused by that breach of duty. Lastly, the Defendants affirmative defense of
comparative negligence must fail, as the record is clear as to the abject evidence of anycomparative negligence or culpable conduct on the part of Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted in its entirety, and that the Plaintiff be granted such other and further
relief as this Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 19, 2015
Yours, etc.,
BARON ASSOCIATES P.C.
By: | Ee °
Alexandr Griss, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
2509 Avenue U
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Tel: (718)934-6501
Fax: (718)648-7781
Email: BaronAssociates@aol.com
Our File No.: 8538
TO:
Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE
1 Metrotech Center, 8th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201EXHIBIT “A”(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/17/2014 01:39 PM) INDEX NO. 510806 /2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index #
COUNTY OF KINGS ’ Date Purchased:
wonton ese nnneenaneneaitiiesiesvnnnittenenneneunnatieuvnenes X SUMMONS
MARY ANN TARANTO
Plaintiff designates
Plaintiff, Kings County asthe place
-against- of trial
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE The basis of venue is:
PLAINTIFF'S
Defendants. RESIDENCE
ne tnnennnnanannenennnanannannnenenicnccnnneeeenneneceenanninenc! X
Plaintiff resides at:
242 Sackett Street 3rd Foor
Brooklyn, NY 11231
To the above named Defendant:
You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of
your answer, ot, if he complaint is not served with this summons, fo serve a notice of appearance
on the plaintiff's attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the
day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30
days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner, In case of your failure
{o appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
Dated: BROOKLYN, NEW YORK Plalutiff's attorneys:
Novernber 12, 2014 BARON ASSOCIATES, P. C,
2509 Avenue U
Brooklyn, New York 11229
(718) 934-6501
Our File No, 8538
NOTICE: THE NATURE OF THIS ACTION IS AS FOLLOWS: NEGLIGENCE on ot about
June 20, 2014 at approximately 10:15 a.m,
THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS AS FOLLOWS: MONEY DAMAGES,
UPON YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR: Judgment will be taken against you by default with
interest from June 20, 2014, and the costs of this action,
Defendants? addresses:
MOHAMMAD BAIG MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE
611 EAST 38 STREET 925 EAST 14" STREET APT SC
BROOKLYN, NY 11203 BROOKLYN, NY 11230SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OT KINGS
cet ninneneuneneennnannaatnnnitinannanien gna tuutntiet nti nananacn! x
MARY ANN TARANTO
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No.:
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE
Defendants,
a nenaununne nnnasnninnennnnannennatt neuuuncannmenneenumensensunenenes x
AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFE, MARY ANN TARANTO
1, That at the time of the commencement of this action, plaintiff, MARY ANN
TARANTO, resided and still resides in the County of Kings, State of New York,
2 That the cause of action alleged herein arose in the County of New York, City and
, State of New York,
3. ‘This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in the CPLR. 1602,
4. That on or about June 20, 2014, there existed a certain public roadways and/or
thoroughfares known as Roosevelt Drive, more specifically near the intersection of Roosevelt Drive
and East 6" Street, in the County of New York, City and State of New York (“the subject
location”).
5 That on or about June 20, 2014, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANT 'O, resided and
still resides in the County of Kings, City and State of New York,
6. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, owned the subject velicle beating New York State license
plate number 3D39B,8. Thal on or about June 20, 2014, and at ail times and tocations heeein inentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license
plate number 3D39B.
9, That on or about Jone 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently operated the subject motor vehicle beating New
York State license plate number 3D39B.
10. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license
plate number 3D39B within the scope of his employment.
11. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license
plate number 3D39B with the permission of its owner, ,
42, That on or about June 20, 2014, and at alf times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State
license plate number 3D39B.
13. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B.
f4. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed ta control the subject motor vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B,15. ‘That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, managed the subject motor vehicle beating New York State
license plate number 3D39B,
16. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently managed the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B.
17, That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed to manage the subject motor vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B.
18. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State
‘license plate number 3D39B,
19. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B.
20. That on or about Juno 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed to inspect the subject motor vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B,
21. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD -BAIG, repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State
license plate number 3D39B.22, , That on or about June 20, 2014, and at afl times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B.
23, — That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed to repair the subject motor vehicle beating New York
State license plate number 3D39B.
24. That by reason of the going, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, was
compelled to and did necessarily require medical aid and attention and did necessarily pay and
become liable therefore for medicines and upon information and belief, the plaintiff will
necessarily incur similar expenses,
25, / That on or about June 20, 2014, defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently,
carelessly and recklessly owned, operated, maintained, managed, and controlled a certain motor
vehicle bearing New York State license plate 3D39B, causing injury to the Plaintiff, MARY ANN
TARANTO, who was a lawful passenger within said motor vehicle,
26. That on or about June 20, 2014,and at all times and locations herein mentioned
and at all times herein mentioned, as a result of the defendants’ negligence as aforesaid, plaintiff,
MARY ANN TARANTO, has sustained a serious personal injury and/or impairment which
resulted in significant loss of 'a body organ; conscious pain and suffering; significant limitation of
use of a body function; loss of norinal pursuits and pleasures of life; and/or a medically
determined injury or impairment which prevents plaintiff from performing substantially all of the
material acts which constitute plaintiff's usual and customary activities for such period of time
all as specified by Section 5102 of Insurance Law, Subsection (d). .27, — That plaintiff MARY ANN TARAN'LO, sustained serious injuries and economic
loss greater than basic economic foss as defined by §5104 of the Insurance Law of the State of
New York.
28, That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO, has been
damaged in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would
otherwise have jusisdiction.
29. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, has been
unable to attend fo her usual occupation in the manner required,
30. That the above-stated occurrence and the results thereof were in no way due to
any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, contributing thereto, but
were caused by the joint, several and/or concurrent negligence of the defendant and/or said
defendant’s agents, servants, employees and/or licensees in the ownership, operation,
management, maintenance and control of their said motor vehicle.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIEE, MARY ANN TARANTO
31, Plaintiff repeats, reiterates aud realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs designated “1” through “30” inclusive with the same force and effect as if hereinafter set
forth at length, ‘
32, That at the time of the commencement of this action, plaintiff, MARY ANN
TARANTO, resided and still resides in the County of Kings, State of New York,
33, That the cause of action alleged herein arose in the County of New York, City and
State of New York,
34, This action falls within one or more of the excoptions set forth in the CPLR. 1602,
35. That on or about June 20, 2014, there existed a certain public roadways and/orthoroughfares known as Roosevelt Drive, more specifically near the intersection of Roosevelt Drive
and East 6" Street, in the County of New York, City and State of New York (“the’ subject
focation”).
36. That on or about April 5, 2013, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, resided and
still resides in the County of Kings, City and State of New York,
47, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, owned the subject vehicle beating New York State license
plate number 3D39B.
38. That on or about April 5, 2013, and af all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, was the registrant of the subject vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B.
39. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license
plate number 3D39B.
40, That on ot about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York’ State license
plate number 3D39B within the scope of her employment,
41, — That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license
plate number 3D39B with the permission of its owner,
42, That on or about Aptil 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M., SIDDIQUE, negligently operated the subject motor vehicle beating New
York State license plate number 3D39B.4 43, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State
license plate number 3D39B,
44, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, negligently controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B,
45. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, failed to contro! the subject motor vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B.
46, — That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, managed the subject motor vehicte bearing New York State
license plate number 3D39B. ,
47, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all limes and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, negligently managed the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B,
48, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, failed to manage the subject motor vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B,
49, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State
license plate number 3D39B,50, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, negligently inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B,
, 5h. ‘That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, failed (o inspect the subject motor vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B,
52, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUR, repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State
license plate number 3D39B,
53. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, negligently repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New
York State license plate number 3D39B.
54. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned
defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, failed to zepair the subject motor vehicle bearing New York
State license plate number 3D39B,
55, That by reason of the going, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, was
compelled to and did necessarily require medical aid and attention and did necessarily pay and
become liable therefore for medicines and upon information and belief, the plaintiff will
necessarily incur similar expenses.
36. That on or about June 20, 2014, defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, negligently,
carelessly and recklessly owned, operated, maintained, managed, and controlled a certain motor
vehicle bearing New York State license plate 3D39B, causing injuty to the Plaintiff, MARY ANN
TARANTO, who was a lawful passenger within said motor vehicle.57, That on or about April 5, 2013,and at all times and locations herein mentioned
and at all times herein mentioned, as a result of the defendants? negligence as aforesaid, plaintiff,
MARY ANN TARANTO, has sustained a serious personal injury and/or impairment which
resulted in significant loss of a body organ; conscious pain and suffering; significant imitation of
use of a body function; loss of normal pursuits and pleasures of life: and/or a medically
determined injury or impairment which prevents plaintiff from performing substantially ail of the
material acts which constitute plaintif(’s usual and customary activities for such period of time
all as specified by Section 5102 of Insurance Law, Subsection (d).
58, That plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO, sustained serious injuries and economic
loss greater than basic economic loss as defined by §5104 of the Insurance Law of the State of
New York.
57. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO, has been
damaged in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits-of all lower courts which would
otherwise have jurisdiction.
58, That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, has been
unable to attend to her usual occupation in the manner required.
59, That the above-stated occurrence and the results thereof were in no way due to
any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, contributing thereto, but
were caused by the joint, several and/or conoutrent negligence of the defendant and/or said
defendant’s agents, servants, employees and/or licensees in the ownership, operation,
management, maintenance and control of their said motor vehicle,
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demands judgment against each and every defendant in an
amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise havejurisdiction and which warrants the jurisdiction of this Court; together with the costs and
disbursements of this action,
Dated: Brooklyn, New York Yours, ete.,
November 12, 2014
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARY ANN TARANTO
2509 Avenue U
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Tel: (718)934-6501
Fax: (718)648-7781
Email: BaronAssociatos@aol.comCLIENT'S VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK
SS:
COUNTY OF KINGS
MARY ANN TARANTO being duly sworn, says:
Tama Plaintiffin the action herein: I have read the annexed COMPLAINT and know
the contents thereof, and the same are true fo my knowledge, except those matters therein which
are stated (o be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe thom (o be
true, My beliefas to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon facts,
records, and other pertinent information conlained in my personal files,
DATED: Brooklyn, New York
Satay of Np / 2044
Sworn fo before me this
(Peday of t 2014
ep.
Notary Publié
Diana Buonosore
Notary Publi State of New York
Commission No, 01BU4874304
Qualiflad tn iinge County g
Commission Expires :10-27- /INDEX NO.:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
COUNTY OF KINGS -
MARY ANN TARANTO
Plaintiff,
-against-
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE
Defendants,
SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
BARON ASSOCIATES PC.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
2509 AVENUE U
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11229
TELEPHONE (718) 934-6501
Wmail: Baronassociates@aol.com
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22.N, ¥. GRR, 130-1,1(a):
T certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances, that the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein
are not frivolous, as that term is defined in 22/N, Y.C.R.R, 130-4.1(a).
Dated: LI2/14 :
By: Ph Ge :
ALEXANDR GRISS
Please take notice that this office does not accept service via FAX and/or RMAIL,EXHIBIT “B”FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2015 10:07 AN INDEX NO, 510806/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
crareneatensnarestnsnanerentonteerntqntnntatunsuetastitenshatsnasaneneneenee X INDEX NO.: 10806/14
MARY ANN TARANTO,
Plaintiff(s), VERIFIED ANSWER WITH
DEMAND FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
-against ~
CASE ID: 74891
OUR FILE NO. 901686
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, YOUR FILE NO.: 8538
Defendant(s).
Sirs/Madams:
The Defendant(s) MOHAMMAD BAIG and MIRZA M., SIDDIQUE, by attorneys, BAKER,
MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C, answering the Complaint of the Plaintiff(s) herein,
respectfully allege(s) upon information and belief, as follows:
ANSWERING THE ALLEGED FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF, MARY ANN TARANTO
Upon information and belief, denies each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint
designated as follows: 7 MISSING FROM COMPLAINT, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.
Denies any knowledge or information theréof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 1, 3, 5, 15, 18.
ANSWERING THE ALLEGED SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF, MARY ANN TARANTO
Answering paragraph 34 of the Complaint set forth in paragraphs “1” through “30”, repeats,
reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation, admission and denial contained in the preceding
paragraphs of this Answer, with the same force and effect as though here again set forth at Jength.
Upon information and belief, denies each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint
designated as follows: 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 63, 54, 55, 66, 1ST #57,
1ST #58, 2ND #57, 2ND #58, 59.
Denies any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as foliows: 32, 34, 36.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction over the answering Defendant(s) In that the Summons
and Complaint was not served upon the Defendant(s), and if the Summons was served, it was not
effected in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 3 of the CPLR, said’provisions governing
the service of process,SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That by reason of ail of the provisions of Article 51 of the New York Comprehensive
Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, Sections 5101 to 5108, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this action and Plaintiff(s) is expressly prohibited by the above mentioned law from
maintaining this action. :
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to the C.P.L.R. Sections 1411 and 1412, any damages sustained by the Plaintiff(s) were
caused by the culpable conduct of the Plaintiff(s), including comparative negligence or assumption of the
tisk, and not by the culpable conduct or negligence of the answering Defendant(s).
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 4545, Plaintiff's recovery should be reduced by any amounts received or to
be received by Plaintiff(s) from collateral sources of payment.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That if the Plaintiff(s) suffered injury and damage in the manner and at the time and place alleged
in the complaint, which this Defendant(s) denies / deny and if it be determined that said injury and
damage were caused and contributed to by reason of the Plaintiff's fallure to use or properly use seat
bells, shoulder harness (es) or other restraining devices, pursuant to the authority of SPIER V. BARKER,
35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 9146, Defendant(s) hereby pleads said failure in mitigation of damages.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
‘That if it be determined hereafter that Plaintiff(s) or any party to this lawsuit has proceeded to
arbitration with respect to any issue relevant to this action which results in an adverse ruling to said
Plaintiff(s) or party, then and in that event, the answering Defendant(s) hereby pleads said adverse ruling
or award on the theory of collateral estoppel under the authority of MATTER OF AMERICAN
INSURANCE CO. (MESSENGER-AETNA CAS, & SUR. CO.), 43 N.Y.2d 184, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36;
ALTMAN v. QUEENS TR. CORP., 94 Misc.2d 549, 405 N.Y.S.2d 212; DERMATOSSIAN v. NEW YORK
CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 67 N.Y.2d 219, 504 N.Y.S.2d 784; c.f. BALDWIN v. BROOKS, 83 A.D.2d
85, 443 N.Y.S.2d 906; CLEMMENS v. APPLE, 65 N.Y.2d 746 and SCHULIZ v.BOYSCOUTS OF
AMERICA, 65 N.Y.2d 189.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants’ vehicle operator suffered a sudden and unexpected medical emergency. N.Y.
PJl 2:14; RIVERA v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 54 A.D, 3d 545, 863 N.Y.S. 2d
201 (1* Dept. 2008); CARISTO v. SANZONE, 96 N.Y.2d 172, 175, 176 N.Y.S. 2d 334, 750
N.E.2d 36 (2001); MGGINN v. NEW YORK CITY TR. AUTH., 240 A.D. 2d 378, 379, 658 N.Y.S.
2d 121 (2"° Dept. 1997); DALCHAND v, MISSIGMAN, 288 A.D. 2d 956, 732 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2001
N.Y. Slip Op. 08828 (4"" Dept. 2001); FICORILLI v. THOMSEN, 262 A.D.2d 602, 603, 692 N.Y.S.
2d 673 (2° Dept. 1999); STATE OF NEW YORK v. SUSCO, 245 A.D.2d 854, 855, 666 N.Y.S.
2d 321 (3°° Dept. 1997).WHERE FE ORE, the answering Defendant(s) demand(s) judgment dismissing the Complaint of
Dated: BROOKLYN, N.Y.
FEBRUARY 3, 2015
TO: SEERIDER.
FILE NO. 901686
BAKER, NIC MOSKOVITS, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant(s)
MOHAMMAD BAIG and MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE
ONE METROTECH CENTER, 8™ FL
BROOKLYN, NY 11201
_ TEL: (212) 857-8230/FAX:(212) 857-8238AFFIRMATION
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS) ss.;
RONIT Z. MOSKOVITS, an attorney at law, hereby affirms pursuant to the C.P.L.R. and
subscribing as true under the penalties of perjury, as follows:
That the Affirmant is associated with firm of BAKER, McEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C.,
attorneys of record for the Defendant(s) in the above entitled action.
That the Affirmant has read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER WITH DEMAND FOR BILL OF
PARTICULARS, NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION ARTICLE 31 C.P.LR., NOTICE
PURSUANT TO C.P.L.R. 2103 (@), DEMAND FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION AND DEMAND FOR
PHYSIGAL EXAMINATION, COMBINED DEMANDS, DEMAND FOR MEDICARE/MEDICAID
INFORMATION, NOTICE DECLINING SERVICE BY MEANS OF ELECTRONIC OR FAX
TRANSMITTALS NOTICE FOR INSURANCE INFORMATION and knows the contents thereof; that same
is true to her own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief, and as to those matters, she believes them to be true.
This Verification is made by Affirmant and not by the Defendant(s) because said Defendant(s)
were not within the County in which the firm of BAKER, McEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C.
maintain their offices for the practice of law when this VERIFIED ANSWER WITH DEMAND FOR BILL
OF PARTICULARS, NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION ARTICLE 34 C.P.LR., NOTICE
PURSUANT TO C.P.L.R. 2103 (e), DEMAND FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION AND DEMAND FOR
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, COMBINED DEMANDS, DEMAND FOR MEDICARE/MEDICAID
INFORMATION, NOTICE DECLINING SERVICE BY MEANS OF ELECTRONIC OR FAX
TRANSMITTALS NOTICE FOR INSURANCE INFORMATION was drafted.
The grounds of Affirmant's belief as to all matters not stated upon her knowledge are as follows:
BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM OF
BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C.
AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY
AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY.
DATED AFFIRMED: BROOKLYN, NY
FEBRUARY 3, 2015
RONI ITS, ESQ” /74891-901536/CB
TO: BARON ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorney(s) for the Plaintiff(s)
MARY ANN TARANTO
2509 AVENUE U
BROOKLYN, NY 11229
TELEPHONE: (718) 934-6501 r
FILE NO. 901586EXHIBIT “C”FILE #: 8538
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
serreeeeenenentenennvec corners rennasnittiansn-rmnannananinenen eaten x
MARY ANN TARANTO,
AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT
Plaintiff,
Index No,: 510806/2014
~apninst-
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE,
Defendants,
- tenn eee teeta ttre mma
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF KINGS
MARY ANN TARANTO, being sworn, deposes and states:
t, Tam the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, and J submit this affidavit in support of a
Motion for Summary Judgment,
2, On Sune 20, 2014, I was passenger of a motor vehlole beeing New York State fieense
plate number 35398 that was involved ina single car motor vehicle recident on Roosevelt Dive
and East 6th Street, In the County NEW YORK, State of New ‘York.
3, On June 20, 2014, at approximately 10:00 PM, the defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, did
operate and lose contol of motor vehicle bearing New York State Itcense plate number 30398
owned by the defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, causing that vehiele to be involved in an
accident while Twas a lawful passenger in said vehicle,
4, Agaresult of the motar vehicle accident I was caused to sustain serious injuries
§, ‘That after the accident the police were callod to the seene and J informed them of how the
accident orcwted, Attached hereta as Exhibit "D" is a copy of the Police Report.
6 T did not act, in any abnormal, careless, negligent, reckless, or unusual manner whichwould have precipitated the accident.
7, There was no olfier motor vehicle involved that could have oaused this accident.
8. [have mads no prior application for relief from this court nor any other cout,
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February ih 2015
LA, eeerucl
Mea, oe ta “
Sworn to before me this
LS. day of February, 2015EXHIBIT “D”Pogo y of y Pages New York State Department of Motor Vehicles /
a POL!“ ACCIDENT REPORT (NYC) {> fo :
° 298 1 MV-104AN ear ( ) ‘ : iO
Accident 5 fr he mes Oe jot
Accident Dat Day of Week MiltaryTime No. of ‘No. Injured No. Killed Ke i LeftScene | Polica Photos: 20
of erts Say |r Day 0 ~ Vehieles ‘Yoled| Notinvestigated at Scene [} a’
Ce | Oo |e Re WONVS: Rh \ Or [Reconstructed O C_| ives Bifio
VEHICLE 4 VEHIGLE2 EJ BICYCLIST [] PEDESTRIAN _[] OTHER PEDESTRIAN
____] VEHICLE 4 - Driver yo. —_ Statqof Lic. [VEHICLE 2 - Driver State of Lis.
2 [ticense io Number B59 SIS dys “f_] License 1D Numbor WA
=" [Driver Name -exacily Driver Name - exactly
1s printed on license. Ra {a M one nent S$ as printed on foensa . —_
ee Gnolude Number & ge ° Apt No. [ee Unclude Number & Street) ~ - ‘Apt.No. }—
eas AR Sbceet Jn
& ‘or Town 7, Slate Zip Code City or Town State Zip Code 22
SOG sy, NY Wao'd _
3 Data of Bil ~ ‘Sex Unlicensed: ie. of publ Date of Binh. Sex Unlicensed | No. . Bubtic
‘ coupants Konth ‘Ds ir ans: *10f
\ RR | et My a Ipant a Denes gd ont jay | Year a 0 ceo oper a
Namerexactly ag printed on registration Sex Bale at 5 Name-exaclly a8 printed on registration Sexe ato af Bah a 7
‘ Mont lay | Year fon yay eat
Qou oy Mohamed. :
‘Address (litiuds Numbsr & Street} . Apt No. | Haz. TReleased | Address (include Number & Siren ” [Apt No. te {Released 23
4 (=e ° “Sa Nat ' at i
Gi Gog. BE Sheol wt _ fi FY
or Town, ree ity of Town State Zip Code
UU MODAL FY 0 (oO. . a
Plate Number fe of Rea, ] Vehic's Yaar & eS, Vericie Tyre [Ins. Code] Plate Number [stato of Reg. |Vehicle Year & Make Vehicle Type Ins, Code
= dBA G 1 SY | 8519 Porg[Ndsp 1G 7
TickelfArrest Tickeprrest
Z
{ Numbers) SADC MARY & QS Nebr)
——"] Violation Violation
Sevens) BA~ 1 Sexton(s) : . 1
Check if involved vehicle Ist ‘Gheck if involved vehicle Circle the diagram below that describes tho accident, or draw your own
6 C1 more than 95 inches wide; Cl more than 95 inchas wid diagram in space #9, Number the vehicies.
V | O more than 34 fect long; V} B more than 34 feet long; Rear End Celt Tum Right Angle ~~ [Right Tum [Head On.
E | Coparated with an overvielght permit, & | D operated with an overweight perrit; \ pe a
H |G operated with an overdimension permit, | } | Cl operated with an overdimension parmit, |< “= |, w% \ 5, 7.
5 VEHICLE 1 DAMAGE Gone 1 VENNICLE 2 DAMAGE CODES Ee Pe : ER Tin [Sea
7] © | Box 4 - Point of impact 2 | ©) Box 4 - Point of impact 1 samo direction ~ see | oPPasito _
7 11) Box 2- Most Damage Lo-| \ | c | 80x 2-Most bamaga 2 ta '{o. A. aw de
\ | Enter up to three 3 724 1.8 | £} Enter up to three 3 | 4 | 5 JACCIDENT DIAGRAM
more Damage Codes | | 3 [Ge mare Damage Codes F
ae 2
WITNESS {Attach separate sheet, if meee .
Name Address Phone
Ay
. a ve
DUPLICATE COPY REQUIRED FOR:
Dept. of Motor Vehicles B Motor’ Transport Division ES) NYC Taxi & Limousine Comm. £1 Other City Agency
(if anyone is killed/injured) (P.D, vehicle involved) {if'a Licensed taxi or limousine (Specify)
invalved) .
Gifice of Comptrotier O Personnel Safety Unit TA Highway Unit
(if a City vehicle involved} (if a P.D. vehicle invatved)
NOTIFICATIONS: (Enter namo, address, and telationship of friend ox relative notified, If sided person is unidentified, list Missing Person Squad member who
was notified. In either case, give date and time of notification.)
a
we
PROPERTY DAMAGED (other than vehicles) | OWNER OF PROPERTY (include-cily agency, where applicable)
7
r “
IF RYPD VEHEE Do .
Polleg Vehicle-Operatar's First Name Last Name [ No. Tax 1D. No, Command
Make of Vehicte oT year [Type of Vahicla Plate No. " Dept. Vehicle No, [Assigned To What Command
Equipment in Use At Time of Accident
O siren OHorn OO Turret Light 1 4-Way Flasher 2 O High-Level Warning Lights 1 traffic Cones CHeaclights
ACTIGNS OF POLICE VEHICLE
11 Responding to Code Signal Ci complying with Station House Directive
1 Pursuing Violator Routine Patro!
CT other (Describe) _
HAVTOAAN (7119)AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE
STATE OF NEW YORK _)
COUNTY OF KINGS ) SS.
MICHAEL MA, ESQ., an attorney, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Affirmant attorney is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at 2509
Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York.
On February 19, 2015, affirmant served the within VERIFIED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT upon the attorneys for the defendant in this action at:
Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE
1 Metrotech Center, 8th Fi.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
these being the address designated by said attorneys for that purpose by depositing a true copy of
same enclosed in a post-paid properly addressed wrapper, in an official depository mailbox
maintained at Avenue U and Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, New York
(fér the exclusive care and
custody of the United States Postal Service within the State of Nev
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
2509 Avenue U
Brooklyn, New York 11229
Telephone (718) 934-6501INDEX NO.: 510806/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
MARY ANN TARANTO,
Plaintiff,
-against-
MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE,
Defendants.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BARON ASSOCIATES P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
2509 AVENUE U
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11229
TELEPHONE (718) 934-6501
Email: Baronassociates@aol.com
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22N, Y. CR. R. 130-L.1(a):
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances, that the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein
are not frivolous, as that term is defined in 22.N. Y,.C,R.R. 130-1.1{a).
Dated: 29/5
By: ae
“"ALEXANDR GRISS
Please take notice that this office does not accept service via FAX and/or EMAIL,
Preview
(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 0271972015 04:36 PM INDEX NO. 510806/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2015 FILE #: 8538 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS tee nee nee eee enn xX MARY ANN TARANTO, NOTICE OF MOTION Plaintiff, Index No.: 510806/2014 -against- MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, Defendants. nance nee ence ennnnneennnnnnneeeennnnnennmennnnenennnennnene! xX PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affirmation of Alexandr Griss, Esq., duly sworn to on Thursday, February 19, 2015, upon the duly sworn Affidavit of Merit of MARY ANN TARANTO, and upon all pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the Plaintiff will move this Court at an IAS Part thereof, to be held at the Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street County of KINGS, City and State of New York, on the 19th day of March, 2015, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order , pursuant to CPLR §3212 (1) granting Plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, Summary Judgment on her claims of liability against Defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE 3(2) dismissing all the Defendants claims and affirmative defenses, comparative negligence, and/or culpable conduct on the part of the Plaintiff; and (3) such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this motion is being served upon you more than 12 days prior to the return date of the notice. Answering affidavits, if any, are to be served at least 7 days prior to the return date of the motion.Dated: TO: BROOKLYN, NEW YORK February 19, 2015 Yours, etc., BARON ASSOCIATES P.C. ag Alexandr Griss, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO 2509 Avenue U Brooklyn, New York 11229 (718) 934-6501 Our File No.: 8538 Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE 1 Metrotech Center, 8th Fl, Brooklyn, NY 11201FILE #; 8538 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ween neem nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnennnnnnnnnnnee! x MARY ANN TARANTO, AFFIRMATION IN Plaintiff, SUPPORT -against- Index No: 510806/2014 MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, Defendants. ce ence nen nena nnn annnnnnnnennnnnnenneenene x Alexandr Griss, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury: 1. Tam associated with the firm of Baron Associates P.C., attorneys for the plaintiff herein, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action based upon my review of the file pertaining to same as maintained by your affirmant’s law office. 2. The instant affirmation is respectfully submitted in support of plaintiffs within motion seeking an Order, pursuant to CPLR §3212 (1) granting plaintiff's Summary Judgment on their claim of negligence against defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE; (2) dismissing defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence and/or culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff; and (3} such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. NATURE OF CLAIM 3. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently operated a motor vehicle bearing State of New York license plate number 3D39B, owned by Defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, in which Plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO was a lawful passenger, causing said motor vehicle to crash. It is plaintiff'scontention that these injuries occurred solely and exclusively as a result of the defendant’s negligence, and nof as the result of any negligence or culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4. The within action was brought on behalf of plaintiff, and involves a claim for negligence resulting in serious damages sustained by plaintiff. Annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" is a copy of Plaintiff's Summons and Verified Complaint. 38. Issue was joined as to defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE by service of their Answer on or about February 18, 2015, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "B". PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 6. Based upon the annexed affidavit of the plaintiff annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”, and upon the corroborating information in the MV-104AN (“Police Report”), a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”, as set forth below, it is respectfully submitted that there exists no genuine issues of material fact which would need to be decided by a jury as the trier of fact; as to either the negligence of the defendant, or as to the abject absence of any evidence of comparative negligence or culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, Summary Judgment is warranted; both as to a finding of negligence by the defendant, and as to dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence and/or culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff.ARGUMENT Standard of Review 9. CPLR §3212 reads, in relevant part, as follows: “Any party may move for summary judgment in any action, after issue has been joined... . A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions. The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts; it shall recite ail the material facts; and it shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the ... defense has no merit. The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action ... shall be established sufficiently to warrant the [C]ourt as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.” 10. ‘It is well settled that the remedy of summary judgment, though drastic, is nonetheless appropriate where as in the case at bar, a thorough examination of the merits clearly demonstrates the absence of any triable issues of fact. See, Vamattam _v. Thomas, 205 A.D.2d 615, 613 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y.A.D., 1994). It is additionally well settled that upon a movant’s setting out a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and tendering admissible evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact from the case, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party opponent to rebut that prima facie showing by presenting evidence in admissible form establishing the existence of triable issues of fact. See, Function Supply, et al. v. Progressive Insurance Company, 2005 WL 2807423 (Civ. Ct. Queens County); (citing, Winegrad v. New_York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985); Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320 (1986); Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980); Davenport v, County of Nassau, 279 A.D.2d 497 (2d Dep’t 2001); Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268 (2d Dep’t 1992); Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204 (1997); see, also Prince v. DiBenedetto, 189 A.D.2d 757, 592 N.Y.S.2d 388 (2d Dep’t 1993); Yu_v. Pae, 201 A.D.2d 697,608 N.Y.S.2d 286 (2d Dep’t 1994); Romano v. St, Vincent’s Medical Center of Richmond, 178 A.D.2d 467, 577 N.Y.S.2d 311 (2d Dep’t 1991); Gong v. Gjoni, 294 A.D.2d 648, 741 N.Y.S.2d 600 (3d Dep’t 2002), 11. It is further well settled that summary judgment is permitted for plaintiffs in negligence cases when there is no conflict in the evidence; where defendant conduct fell far below any permissible standard of due care; and where plaintiff's conduct was not really involved, See, O'Callaghan vy. Flitter, 112 A-D.2d 1030, 493 N.Y.S.2d 28 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1985). It is additionally well settled that summary judgment shall be granted where there are no issues of material fact and the evidence requires the Court to direct judgment in favor of the movant as a matter of law. See, Jackson v. Deer Park Ventures, 2005 WL 2847265 (Sup.Ct. Kings County); (citing, Friends of Animals, Inc, v. Associated Fur Manufacturers, 46 N.Y.2d 1065 (1979), Lastly, whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent does not prohibit the granting of summary judgment to plaintiffs on the issue of liability, where the undisputed facts establish negligence on the part of the defendant. See, Salisbury v. Montgomery Ward Store, 283 A.D.2d 858, 727 N.Y.S.2d 176, (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2001). With particular regard to the latter, and as more fully set forth below, even should this Court deny the portion of plaintiff's instant motion seeking dismissal of defendants’ affirmative defense of comparative negligence and/or culpable conduct of the plaintiff, summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ negligence is still warranted. The Affidavit of MARY ANN TARANTO warrants the granting of Summary Judgment 12. It is respectfully submitted that the affidavit of MARY ANN TARANTO, describes of the facts surrounding the accident which caused the incident, as described in hersworn affidavit, is prima facie evidence of the defendants’ negligence and is sufficient grounds for the granting of Summary Judgment. 13. In her affidavit, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit "C", MARY ANN TARANTO, described the incident as occurring on June 20, 2014 as follows: On June 20, 2014 at approximately 10:00 PM, Plaintiff was a lawful passenger within the automobile operated by Defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG. See §2. That while being a lawful passenger within said automobile, Defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, lost control of the motor vehicle and crashed, See 4B. 14. It is further settled that when a plaintiff submits evidence in admissible form, including his Affidavit, demonstrating that defendant was responsible for the collision, and that the plaintiff was free from any negligence, that this evidence, which demonstrated that defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law is sufficient to establish plaintiff's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of which driver was responsible for the accident. See, Griffin v. Pennoyer, 49 A.D.3d 341, 852 N.Y.8.2d 765 (1st Dep't 2008). 15. Although Griffin, supra, pertained to a defendant's violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, pertaining to left turns at intersections, it is respectfully submitted that the principle of Griffin applies in the instant case on the issue of plaintiff's burden of proof. 16. Vehicle and Traffic Law §1212 reads, in relevant part, as follows: “Reckless driving shall mean driving or using any motor vehicle, motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway. Reckless driving is prohibited.Every person violating this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” 17. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(a), reads, in relevant part, as follows: "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.” 18. ‘It is respectfully submitted that defendants failure to heed VTL §1212 and VTL §1180(a) constitutes further prima facie proof of defendants’ negligence within the meaning of Griffin, 19. It is respectfully submitted that defendants, MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, have breached their duty of care by failing to use due care to avoid the accident as set forth above. It is further submitted that the injuries of the plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO were proximately caused by defendant’s breach of said duty. CONCLUSION 20. It is respectfully submitted that through the sworn affidavit of the Plaintiff, and the attached MV-104AN, that the Plaintiff has abundantly established prima facie entitlement to Summary Judgment within the meaning of the case law cited above. It is undisputed that the Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in operating the motor vehicle as to keep Plaintiff free from danger. ‘There is undisputed proof of the manner in which the accident occurred, the Defendants undeniably breached duty to the Plaintiff, by failure to exercise reasonable care for safety, and it is further undisputed that Plaintiff resultant injuries were proximately caused by that breach of duty. Lastly, the Defendants affirmative defense of comparative negligence must fail, as the record is clear as to the abject evidence of anycomparative negligence or culpable conduct on the part of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in its entirety, and that the Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: Brooklyn, New York February 19, 2015 Yours, etc., BARON ASSOCIATES P.C. By: | Ee ° Alexandr Griss, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2509 Avenue U Brooklyn, NY 11229 Tel: (718)934-6501 Fax: (718)648-7781 Email: BaronAssociates@aol.com Our File No.: 8538 TO: Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE 1 Metrotech Center, 8th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201EXHIBIT “A”(FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/17/2014 01:39 PM) INDEX NO. 510806 /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index # COUNTY OF KINGS ’ Date Purchased: wonton ese nnneenaneneaitiiesiesvnnnittenenneneunnatieuvnenes X SUMMONS MARY ANN TARANTO Plaintiff designates Plaintiff, Kings County asthe place -against- of trial MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE The basis of venue is: PLAINTIFF'S Defendants. RESIDENCE ne tnnennnnanannenennnanannannnenenicnccnnneeeenneneceenanninenc! X Plaintiff resides at: 242 Sackett Street 3rd Foor Brooklyn, NY 11231 To the above named Defendant: You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer, ot, if he complaint is not served with this summons, fo serve a notice of appearance on the plaintiff's attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner, In case of your failure {o appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: BROOKLYN, NEW YORK Plalutiff's attorneys: Novernber 12, 2014 BARON ASSOCIATES, P. C, 2509 Avenue U Brooklyn, New York 11229 (718) 934-6501 Our File No, 8538 NOTICE: THE NATURE OF THIS ACTION IS AS FOLLOWS: NEGLIGENCE on ot about June 20, 2014 at approximately 10:15 a.m, THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS AS FOLLOWS: MONEY DAMAGES, UPON YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR: Judgment will be taken against you by default with interest from June 20, 2014, and the costs of this action, Defendants? addresses: MOHAMMAD BAIG MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE 611 EAST 38 STREET 925 EAST 14" STREET APT SC BROOKLYN, NY 11203 BROOKLYN, NY 11230SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OT KINGS cet ninneneuneneennnannaatnnnitinannanien gna tuutntiet nti nananacn! x MARY ANN TARANTO COMPLAINT Plaintiff, -against- Index No.: MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE Defendants, a nenaununne nnnasnninnennnnannennatt neuuuncannmenneenumensensunenenes x AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFE, MARY ANN TARANTO 1, That at the time of the commencement of this action, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, resided and still resides in the County of Kings, State of New York, 2 That the cause of action alleged herein arose in the County of New York, City and , State of New York, 3. ‘This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in the CPLR. 1602, 4. That on or about June 20, 2014, there existed a certain public roadways and/or thoroughfares known as Roosevelt Drive, more specifically near the intersection of Roosevelt Drive and East 6" Street, in the County of New York, City and State of New York (“the subject location”). 5 That on or about June 20, 2014, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANT 'O, resided and still resides in the County of Kings, City and State of New York, 6. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, owned the subject velicle beating New York State license plate number 3D39B,8. Thal on or about June 20, 2014, and at ail times and tocations heeein inentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 9, That on or about Jone 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently operated the subject motor vehicle beating New York State license plate number 3D39B. 10. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B within the scope of his employment. 11. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B with the permission of its owner, , 42, That on or about June 20, 2014, and at alf times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 13. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. f4. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed ta control the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B,15. ‘That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, managed the subject motor vehicle beating New York State license plate number 3D39B, 16. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently managed the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 17, That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed to manage the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 18. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State ‘license plate number 3D39B, 19. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 20. That on or about Juno 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed to inspect the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 21. That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD -BAIG, repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B.22, , That on or about June 20, 2014, and at afl times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 23, — That on or about June 20, 2014, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, failed to repair the subject motor vehicle beating New York State license plate number 3D39B. 24. That by reason of the going, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, was compelled to and did necessarily require medical aid and attention and did necessarily pay and become liable therefore for medicines and upon information and belief, the plaintiff will necessarily incur similar expenses, 25, / That on or about June 20, 2014, defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, negligently, carelessly and recklessly owned, operated, maintained, managed, and controlled a certain motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate 3D39B, causing injury to the Plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, who was a lawful passenger within said motor vehicle, 26. That on or about June 20, 2014,and at all times and locations herein mentioned and at all times herein mentioned, as a result of the defendants’ negligence as aforesaid, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, has sustained a serious personal injury and/or impairment which resulted in significant loss of 'a body organ; conscious pain and suffering; significant limitation of use of a body function; loss of norinal pursuits and pleasures of life; and/or a medically determined injury or impairment which prevents plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute plaintiff's usual and customary activities for such period of time all as specified by Section 5102 of Insurance Law, Subsection (d). .27, — That plaintiff MARY ANN TARAN'LO, sustained serious injuries and economic loss greater than basic economic foss as defined by §5104 of the Insurance Law of the State of New York. 28, That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO, has been damaged in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jusisdiction. 29. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, has been unable to attend fo her usual occupation in the manner required, 30. That the above-stated occurrence and the results thereof were in no way due to any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, contributing thereto, but were caused by the joint, several and/or concurrent negligence of the defendant and/or said defendant’s agents, servants, employees and/or licensees in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance and control of their said motor vehicle. AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIEE, MARY ANN TARANTO 31, Plaintiff repeats, reiterates aud realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs designated “1” through “30” inclusive with the same force and effect as if hereinafter set forth at length, ‘ 32, That at the time of the commencement of this action, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, resided and still resides in the County of Kings, State of New York, 33, That the cause of action alleged herein arose in the County of New York, City and State of New York, 34, This action falls within one or more of the excoptions set forth in the CPLR. 1602, 35. That on or about June 20, 2014, there existed a certain public roadways and/orthoroughfares known as Roosevelt Drive, more specifically near the intersection of Roosevelt Drive and East 6" Street, in the County of New York, City and State of New York (“the’ subject focation”). 36. That on or about April 5, 2013, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, resided and still resides in the County of Kings, City and State of New York, 47, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, owned the subject vehicle beating New York State license plate number 3D39B. 38. That on or about April 5, 2013, and af all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, was the registrant of the subject vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 39. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 40, That on ot about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York’ State license plate number 3D39B within the scope of her employment, 41, — That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, operated the subject vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B with the permission of its owner, 42, That on or about Aptil 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M., SIDDIQUE, negligently operated the subject motor vehicle beating New York State license plate number 3D39B.4 43, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 44, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, negligently controlled the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 45. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, failed to contro! the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 46, — That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, managed the subject motor vehicte bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. , 47, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all limes and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, negligently managed the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 48, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, failed to manage the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 49, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B,50, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, negligently inspected the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, , 5h. ‘That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, failed (o inspect the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 52, That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUR, repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 53. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, negligently repaired the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B. 54. That on or about April 5, 2013, and at all times and locations herein mentioned defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, failed to zepair the subject motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number 3D39B, 55, That by reason of the going, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, was compelled to and did necessarily require medical aid and attention and did necessarily pay and become liable therefore for medicines and upon information and belief, the plaintiff will necessarily incur similar expenses. 36. That on or about June 20, 2014, defendant, MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, negligently, carelessly and recklessly owned, operated, maintained, managed, and controlled a certain motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate 3D39B, causing injuty to the Plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, who was a lawful passenger within said motor vehicle.57, That on or about April 5, 2013,and at all times and locations herein mentioned and at all times herein mentioned, as a result of the defendants? negligence as aforesaid, plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, has sustained a serious personal injury and/or impairment which resulted in significant loss of a body organ; conscious pain and suffering; significant imitation of use of a body function; loss of normal pursuits and pleasures of life: and/or a medically determined injury or impairment which prevents plaintiff from performing substantially ail of the material acts which constitute plaintif(’s usual and customary activities for such period of time all as specified by Section 5102 of Insurance Law, Subsection (d). 58, That plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO, sustained serious injuries and economic loss greater than basic economic loss as defined by §5104 of the Insurance Law of the State of New York. 57. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO, has been damaged in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits-of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 58, That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, has been unable to attend to her usual occupation in the manner required. 59, That the above-stated occurrence and the results thereof were in no way due to any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, MARY ANN TARANTO, contributing thereto, but were caused by the joint, several and/or conoutrent negligence of the defendant and/or said defendant’s agents, servants, employees and/or licensees in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance and control of their said motor vehicle, WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demands judgment against each and every defendant in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise havejurisdiction and which warrants the jurisdiction of this Court; together with the costs and disbursements of this action, Dated: Brooklyn, New York Yours, ete., November 12, 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARY ANN TARANTO 2509 Avenue U Brooklyn, NY 11229 Tel: (718)934-6501 Fax: (718)648-7781 Email: BaronAssociatos@aol.comCLIENT'S VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK SS: COUNTY OF KINGS MARY ANN TARANTO being duly sworn, says: Tama Plaintiffin the action herein: I have read the annexed COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and the same are true fo my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated (o be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe thom (o be true, My beliefas to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon facts, records, and other pertinent information conlained in my personal files, DATED: Brooklyn, New York Satay of Np / 2044 Sworn fo before me this (Peday of t 2014 ep. Notary Publié Diana Buonosore Notary Publi State of New York Commission No, 01BU4874304 Qualiflad tn iinge County g Commission Expires :10-27- /INDEX NO.: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF KINGS - MARY ANN TARANTO Plaintiff, -against- MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE Defendants, SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT BARON ASSOCIATES PC. Attorneys for Plaintiff Office and Post Office Address, Telephone 2509 AVENUE U BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11229 TELEPHONE (718) 934-6501 Wmail: Baronassociates@aol.com CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22.N, ¥. GRR, 130-1,1(a): T certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous, as that term is defined in 22/N, Y.C.R.R, 130-4.1(a). Dated: LI2/14 : By: Ph Ge : ALEXANDR GRISS Please take notice that this office does not accept service via FAX and/or RMAIL,EXHIBIT “B”FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2015 10:07 AN INDEX NO, 510806/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS crareneatensnarestnsnanerentonteerntqntnntatunsuetastitenshatsnasaneneneenee X INDEX NO.: 10806/14 MARY ANN TARANTO, Plaintiff(s), VERIFIED ANSWER WITH DEMAND FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS -against ~ CASE ID: 74891 OUR FILE NO. 901686 MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, YOUR FILE NO.: 8538 Defendant(s). Sirs/Madams: The Defendant(s) MOHAMMAD BAIG and MIRZA M., SIDDIQUE, by attorneys, BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C, answering the Complaint of the Plaintiff(s) herein, respectfully allege(s) upon information and belief, as follows: ANSWERING THE ALLEGED FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF, MARY ANN TARANTO Upon information and belief, denies each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 7 MISSING FROM COMPLAINT, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. Denies any knowledge or information theréof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 1, 3, 5, 15, 18. ANSWERING THE ALLEGED SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF, MARY ANN TARANTO Answering paragraph 34 of the Complaint set forth in paragraphs “1” through “30”, repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation, admission and denial contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer, with the same force and effect as though here again set forth at Jength. Upon information and belief, denies each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 63, 54, 55, 66, 1ST #57, 1ST #58, 2ND #57, 2ND #58, 59. Denies any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as foliows: 32, 34, 36. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction over the answering Defendant(s) In that the Summons and Complaint was not served upon the Defendant(s), and if the Summons was served, it was not effected in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 3 of the CPLR, said’provisions governing the service of process,SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That by reason of ail of the provisions of Article 51 of the New York Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, Sections 5101 to 5108, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and Plaintiff(s) is expressly prohibited by the above mentioned law from maintaining this action. : THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to the C.P.L.R. Sections 1411 and 1412, any damages sustained by the Plaintiff(s) were caused by the culpable conduct of the Plaintiff(s), including comparative negligence or assumption of the tisk, and not by the culpable conduct or negligence of the answering Defendant(s). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 4545, Plaintiff's recovery should be reduced by any amounts received or to be received by Plaintiff(s) from collateral sources of payment. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That if the Plaintiff(s) suffered injury and damage in the manner and at the time and place alleged in the complaint, which this Defendant(s) denies / deny and if it be determined that said injury and damage were caused and contributed to by reason of the Plaintiff's fallure to use or properly use seat bells, shoulder harness (es) or other restraining devices, pursuant to the authority of SPIER V. BARKER, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 9146, Defendant(s) hereby pleads said failure in mitigation of damages. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ‘That if it be determined hereafter that Plaintiff(s) or any party to this lawsuit has proceeded to arbitration with respect to any issue relevant to this action which results in an adverse ruling to said Plaintiff(s) or party, then and in that event, the answering Defendant(s) hereby pleads said adverse ruling or award on the theory of collateral estoppel under the authority of MATTER OF AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. (MESSENGER-AETNA CAS, & SUR. CO.), 43 N.Y.2d 184, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36; ALTMAN v. QUEENS TR. CORP., 94 Misc.2d 549, 405 N.Y.S.2d 212; DERMATOSSIAN v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 67 N.Y.2d 219, 504 N.Y.S.2d 784; c.f. BALDWIN v. BROOKS, 83 A.D.2d 85, 443 N.Y.S.2d 906; CLEMMENS v. APPLE, 65 N.Y.2d 746 and SCHULIZ v.BOYSCOUTS OF AMERICA, 65 N.Y.2d 189. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants’ vehicle operator suffered a sudden and unexpected medical emergency. N.Y. PJl 2:14; RIVERA v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 54 A.D, 3d 545, 863 N.Y.S. 2d 201 (1* Dept. 2008); CARISTO v. SANZONE, 96 N.Y.2d 172, 175, 176 N.Y.S. 2d 334, 750 N.E.2d 36 (2001); MGGINN v. NEW YORK CITY TR. AUTH., 240 A.D. 2d 378, 379, 658 N.Y.S. 2d 121 (2"° Dept. 1997); DALCHAND v, MISSIGMAN, 288 A.D. 2d 956, 732 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 08828 (4"" Dept. 2001); FICORILLI v. THOMSEN, 262 A.D.2d 602, 603, 692 N.Y.S. 2d 673 (2° Dept. 1999); STATE OF NEW YORK v. SUSCO, 245 A.D.2d 854, 855, 666 N.Y.S. 2d 321 (3°° Dept. 1997).WHERE FE ORE, the answering Defendant(s) demand(s) judgment dismissing the Complaint of Dated: BROOKLYN, N.Y. FEBRUARY 3, 2015 TO: SEERIDER. FILE NO. 901686 BAKER, NIC MOSKOVITS, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant(s) MOHAMMAD BAIG and MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE ONE METROTECH CENTER, 8™ FL BROOKLYN, NY 11201 _ TEL: (212) 857-8230/FAX:(212) 857-8238AFFIRMATION STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS) ss.; RONIT Z. MOSKOVITS, an attorney at law, hereby affirms pursuant to the C.P.L.R. and subscribing as true under the penalties of perjury, as follows: That the Affirmant is associated with firm of BAKER, McEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C., attorneys of record for the Defendant(s) in the above entitled action. That the Affirmant has read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER WITH DEMAND FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION ARTICLE 31 C.P.LR., NOTICE PURSUANT TO C.P.L.R. 2103 (@), DEMAND FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION AND DEMAND FOR PHYSIGAL EXAMINATION, COMBINED DEMANDS, DEMAND FOR MEDICARE/MEDICAID INFORMATION, NOTICE DECLINING SERVICE BY MEANS OF ELECTRONIC OR FAX TRANSMITTALS NOTICE FOR INSURANCE INFORMATION and knows the contents thereof; that same is true to her own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, she believes them to be true. This Verification is made by Affirmant and not by the Defendant(s) because said Defendant(s) were not within the County in which the firm of BAKER, McEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. maintain their offices for the practice of law when this VERIFIED ANSWER WITH DEMAND FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOTICE FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION ARTICLE 34 C.P.LR., NOTICE PURSUANT TO C.P.L.R. 2103 (e), DEMAND FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION AND DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, COMBINED DEMANDS, DEMAND FOR MEDICARE/MEDICAID INFORMATION, NOTICE DECLINING SERVICE BY MEANS OF ELECTRONIC OR FAX TRANSMITTALS NOTICE FOR INSURANCE INFORMATION was drafted. The grounds of Affirmant's belief as to all matters not stated upon her knowledge are as follows: BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM OF BAKER, MCEVOY, MORRISSEY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY. DATED AFFIRMED: BROOKLYN, NY FEBRUARY 3, 2015 RONI ITS, ESQ” /74891-901536/CB TO: BARON ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorney(s) for the Plaintiff(s) MARY ANN TARANTO 2509 AVENUE U BROOKLYN, NY 11229 TELEPHONE: (718) 934-6501 r FILE NO. 901586EXHIBIT “C”FILE #: 8538 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS serreeeeenenentenennvec corners rennasnittiansn-rmnannananinenen eaten x MARY ANN TARANTO, AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT Plaintiff, Index No,: 510806/2014 ~apninst- MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, Defendants, - tenn eee teeta ttre mma STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF KINGS MARY ANN TARANTO, being sworn, deposes and states: t, Tam the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, and J submit this affidavit in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment, 2, On Sune 20, 2014, I was passenger of a motor vehlole beeing New York State fieense plate number 35398 that was involved ina single car motor vehicle recident on Roosevelt Dive and East 6th Street, In the County NEW YORK, State of New ‘York. 3, On June 20, 2014, at approximately 10:00 PM, the defendant, MOHAMMAD BAIG, did operate and lose contol of motor vehicle bearing New York State Itcense plate number 30398 owned by the defendant, MIRZA M, SIDDIQUE, causing that vehiele to be involved in an accident while Twas a lawful passenger in said vehicle, 4, Agaresult of the motar vehicle accident I was caused to sustain serious injuries §, ‘That after the accident the police were callod to the seene and J informed them of how the accident orcwted, Attached hereta as Exhibit "D" is a copy of the Police Report. 6 T did not act, in any abnormal, careless, negligent, reckless, or unusual manner whichwould have precipitated the accident. 7, There was no olfier motor vehicle involved that could have oaused this accident. 8. [have mads no prior application for relief from this court nor any other cout, Dated: Brooklyn, New York February ih 2015 LA, eeerucl Mea, oe ta “ Sworn to before me this LS. day of February, 2015EXHIBIT “D”Pogo y of y Pages New York State Department of Motor Vehicles / a POL!“ ACCIDENT REPORT (NYC) {> fo : ° 298 1 MV-104AN ear ( ) ‘ : iO Accident 5 fr he mes Oe jot Accident Dat Day of Week MiltaryTime No. of ‘No. Injured No. Killed Ke i LeftScene | Polica Photos: 20 of erts Say |r Day 0 ~ Vehieles ‘Yoled| Notinvestigated at Scene [} a’ Ce | Oo |e Re WONVS: Rh \ Or [Reconstructed O C_| ives Bifio VEHICLE 4 VEHIGLE2 EJ BICYCLIST [] PEDESTRIAN _[] OTHER PEDESTRIAN ____] VEHICLE 4 - Driver yo. —_ Statqof Lic. [VEHICLE 2 - Driver State of Lis. 2 [ticense io Number B59 SIS dys “f_] License 1D Numbor WA =" [Driver Name -exacily Driver Name - exactly 1s printed on license. Ra {a M one nent S$ as printed on foensa . —_ ee Gnolude Number & ge ° Apt No. [ee Unclude Number & Street) ~ - ‘Apt.No. }— eas AR Sbceet Jn & ‘or Town 7, Slate Zip Code City or Town State Zip Code 22 SOG sy, NY Wao'd _ 3 Data of Bil ~ ‘Sex Unlicensed: ie. of publ Date of Binh. Sex Unlicensed | No. . Bubtic ‘ coupants Konth ‘Ds ir ans: *10f \ RR | et My a Ipant a Denes gd ont jay | Year a 0 ceo oper a Namerexactly ag printed on registration Sex Bale at 5 Name-exaclly a8 printed on registration Sexe ato af Bah a 7 ‘ Mont lay | Year fon yay eat Qou oy Mohamed. : ‘Address (litiuds Numbsr & Street} . Apt No. | Haz. TReleased | Address (include Number & Siren ” [Apt No. te {Released 23 4 (=e ° “Sa Nat ' at i Gi Gog. BE Sheol wt _ fi FY or Town, ree ity of Town State Zip Code UU MODAL FY 0 (oO. . a Plate Number fe of Rea, ] Vehic's Yaar & eS, Vericie Tyre [Ins. Code] Plate Number [stato of Reg. |Vehicle Year & Make Vehicle Type Ins, Code = dBA G 1 SY | 8519 Porg[Ndsp 1G 7 TickelfArrest Tickeprrest Z { Numbers) SADC MARY & QS Nebr) ——"] Violation Violation Sevens) BA~ 1 Sexton(s) : . 1 Check if involved vehicle Ist ‘Gheck if involved vehicle Circle the diagram below that describes tho accident, or draw your own 6 C1 more than 95 inches wide; Cl more than 95 inchas wid diagram in space #9, Number the vehicies. V | O more than 34 fect long; V} B more than 34 feet long; Rear End Celt Tum Right Angle ~~ [Right Tum [Head On. E | Coparated with an overvielght permit, & | D operated with an overweight perrit; \ pe a H |G operated with an overdimension permit, | } | Cl operated with an overdimension parmit, |< “= |, w% \ 5, 7. 5 VEHICLE 1 DAMAGE Gone 1 VENNICLE 2 DAMAGE CODES Ee Pe : ER Tin [Sea 7] © | Box 4 - Point of impact 2 | ©) Box 4 - Point of impact 1 samo direction ~ see | oPPasito _ 7 11) Box 2- Most Damage Lo-| \ | c | 80x 2-Most bamaga 2 ta '{o. A. aw de \ | Enter up to three 3 724 1.8 | £} Enter up to three 3 | 4 | 5 JACCIDENT DIAGRAM more Damage Codes | | 3 [Ge mare Damage Codes F ae 2 WITNESS {Attach separate sheet, if meee . Name Address Phone Ay . a ve DUPLICATE COPY REQUIRED FOR: Dept. of Motor Vehicles B Motor’ Transport Division ES) NYC Taxi & Limousine Comm. £1 Other City Agency (if anyone is killed/injured) (P.D, vehicle involved) {if'a Licensed taxi or limousine (Specify) invalved) . Gifice of Comptrotier O Personnel Safety Unit TA Highway Unit (if a City vehicle involved} (if a P.D. vehicle invatved) NOTIFICATIONS: (Enter namo, address, and telationship of friend ox relative notified, If sided person is unidentified, list Missing Person Squad member who was notified. In either case, give date and time of notification.) a we PROPERTY DAMAGED (other than vehicles) | OWNER OF PROPERTY (include-cily agency, where applicable) 7 r “ IF RYPD VEHEE Do . Polleg Vehicle-Operatar's First Name Last Name [ No. Tax 1D. No, Command Make of Vehicte oT year [Type of Vahicla Plate No. " Dept. Vehicle No, [Assigned To What Command Equipment in Use At Time of Accident O siren OHorn OO Turret Light 1 4-Way Flasher 2 O High-Level Warning Lights 1 traffic Cones CHeaclights ACTIGNS OF POLICE VEHICLE 11 Responding to Code Signal Ci complying with Station House Directive 1 Pursuing Violator Routine Patro! CT other (Describe) _ HAVTOAAN (7119)AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK _) COUNTY OF KINGS ) SS. MICHAEL MA, ESQ., an attorney, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Affirmant attorney is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at 2509 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York. On February 19, 2015, affirmant served the within VERIFIED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT upon the attorneys for the defendant in this action at: Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE 1 Metrotech Center, 8th Fi. Brooklyn, NY 11201 these being the address designated by said attorneys for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a post-paid properly addressed wrapper, in an official depository mailbox maintained at Avenue U and Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (fér the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within the State of Nev Attorneys for Plaintiff Office and Post Office Address, Telephone 2509 Avenue U Brooklyn, New York 11229 Telephone (718) 934-6501INDEX NO.: 510806/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS MARY ANN TARANTO, Plaintiff, -against- MOHAMMAD BAIG AND MIRZA M. SIDDIQUE, Defendants. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BARON ASSOCIATES P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff Office and Post Office Address, Telephone 2509 AVENUE U BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11229 TELEPHONE (718) 934-6501 Email: Baronassociates@aol.com CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 22N, Y. CR. R. 130-L.1(a): I certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous, as that term is defined in 22.N. Y,.C,R.R. 130-1.1{a). Dated: 29/5 By: ae “"ALEXANDR GRISS Please take notice that this office does not accept service via FAX and/or EMAIL,