Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
- ------------- ---------------------X
ESTHER DIPILATO, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff, OF MOTION
-against- INDEX #: 750035/2018
ANDREW SCIBELLI, SJ FUEL CO,
ANTHONY DIPILATO, ALFRED DOTTARIO, JR.
and SAMMO, LLC
Defendants,
--------- ¬----------------------------------X
------------------ --------------------X
ANDREW SCIBELLI AND SJ FUEL CO., 1NC.,
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK a/s/h/a
THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATIONA ND THE NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Defendants,
_ _--.____ __ ---------------------X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)SS.:
Lee M. Huttner, Esq., being duly sworn, deposes and says, under the penalty of perjury
and, upon information and belief:
That I am associated with the attorney for the plaintiff herein and am familiar with the
facts and circumstances herein, except as to those alleged upon information and belief, and as to
those I verily believe them to be true.
That I make this Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion seeking an order: (1) granting
plaintiff Esther Dipilato leave to serve a late notice of claim upon THE CITY OF NEW YORK
a/s/h/a THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE NEW
1 of 7
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, and (2) for leave to amend the
complaint to include claims on behalf of plaintiff Esther Dipilato against the CITY defendants, and;
(3) granting leave to plaintiff to amend the complaint to include claims against Michael Marcus,
Basso Landscaping, and Edward Philips, and; (4) for an order pursuant to CPLR section 602,
directing that index number 750035/2018 (Supreme Court, Richmond County) be consolidated with
or joined for trialwith index number 151036/2017 (Supreme Court, Richmond County), and, (5)for
such other and further relief in favor of plaintiff as this Court deems just and proper.
The instant application should be granted in all respects.
The following exhibits are attached hereto in support of the instant application:
printoutl
Exhibit "A": Copy of Elaw for Richmond County Supreme Court Index number
151036/2017
Exhibit "B": Copy of Elaw printout for Richmond County Supreme Court Index number
750035/2018
Exhibit "C": Copy of Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Sammo LLC dated
January 8, 2019 (Index 750035/2018) and Attomey Affirmation in Support (exhibits omitted)
Exhibit "D": Copy of Plaintiff Dipilato's January 2019 Opposition to Sammo LLC's January 2019
Motion for Summary Judgment (exhibits omitted)
Exhibit "E": Copy of Orders issued on December 11, 20182in Supreme Court, Kings County
Exhibit "F": Complete Copy of Plaintiff's Motion dated October 11, 2019
It isrespectfully requested the relief sought in the instant application be granted. Itis also
respectfully requested that judicial notice be taken, ifnecessary for complete versions of parts of
this Court's discussed herein ifnot attached in their entirety as exhibits3.
At the time the instant motion is being drafted for service and filing, a motion on behalf of
defendant SAMMO LLC (hereinafter SAMMO) is pending in plaintiff Scibelli's action. See Exhibit
"A"
hereto. The motion is currently returnable on 2/20/19. Your affiant is not personally in
1
Documents at Exhibits A and B Ôreto printedunchanged from resultson screen from search of elaw website,
motions/appearances tab thatyour affiant'sofficecaused to be generated.
2 "D"
See also,Exhibit to Sammo January 8, 2019 Motion for Summary Judgment
3
See,e.g.;ExhibitC and D hereto
2 of 7
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019
possession of a copy of that Motion pending in the action on behalf of the Scibelli defendants under
Supreme Court, Richmond County index number 151036/2017.
A motion seeking summary judgment is also pending on behalf of SAMMO in plaintiff
"B"
Dipilato's action in Supreme Court, Richmond County. See, Exhibit hereto. That motion,
dated January 8, 2019, is also currently returnable on 2/20/19. A copy of the Notice of Motion and
Attomey Affirmation in Support is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Exhibits are omitted based on
concerns for judicial economy.
Plaintiff has served and filed opposition to the January 8, 2019 motion. A copy of that
Opposition (exhibits omitted herewith) is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
The plaintiff Dipilato's action is currently active in Supreme Court, Richmond County
pursuant to Orders directing a transfer of venue issued in Supreme Court, Kings County on
"E"
November 30, 2018 and entered on December 12, 2018. Same orders are attached at Exhibit
hereto.
At the time venue was transferred, an application was pending in Supreme Court, Kings
County on behalf of plaintiff Esther Dipilato seeking leave to include the same defendants that are
named in the related action in Supreme Court, Richmond County bearing index number
151036/2017. A complete copy of that application dated October 11, 2018 is attached hereto as
Exhibit "F". That application was not granted or denied in Supreme Court, Kings County. Upon
information and belief, the transfer of venue of plaintiff Dipilato's action without decision on said
application allows for fresh consideration of said relief herein now that this case is active in
Supreme Court, Richmond County.
3 of 7
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019
"F"
It isrespectfully requested that the arguments, content, and exhibtis of Exhibit be
adopted and incorporated herein and provide support for the relief requested in the instant
application.
Your affiant is not aware of any opposition served on your affiant's office or filed with the
Court on behalf of defendants that plaintiff Dipilato seeks leave to include while the October 2018
motion was pending in Supreme Court, Kings County.
"F"
The leave sought in Exhibit adopted and incorporated herein should be granted in all
respects.
"E"
A review of Exhibit hereto shows that there is no directive consolidating or joining for
number4
trialRichmond County index 151036/2017 with the newly assigned Richmond County
index number of 750035/2018.
Pursuant to CPLR section 602, an order directing consolidation and/or joinder for trialof
numbers
Richmond County Index number 151036/2017 with Richmond County index 750035/2018
should issue.
Itis respectfully requested that this Court take judicial notice of the motion currently
pending on behalf of SAMMO in the action on behalf of the Scibelli Plaintiffs bearing index
number 151036/2017. Upon information and belief, that motion relies on the same arguments and
same facts and offers identical ifnot almost identical exhibits seeking dismissal of the claims of the
Scibelli plaintiffs against SAMMO as offered by SAMMO in the request for dismissal pending in
the plaintiff Dipilato's action. That such summary judgment motions are pending at the same
moment in each case and said motions present as essentially identical should favor relief pursuant to
CPLR section 602, upon information and belief.
4
Referred to herein as Scibelli
intennittently action
5
Referred to intermittentlyhereinas Dipilato action
4 of 7
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019
While a review of Exhibits A and B hereto reveals that the actions are at different stages
since a Compliance Conference has been held in the Scibelli action and a Preliminary Conference
has recently been held in the Dipilato action, at least a joint trialmay be ordered pursuant to CPLR
section 602. See; A.C. v D.R., 31 Misc 3d 517, 520-521 (Sup Ct, Nassau County 2011) ["as
stated by Vincent Alexander in the commentary to CPLR 602:"An order for joint trial ... leaves
the individual actions intact. They are merely brought together in one venue for simultaneous
pretrial and trial proccêdings. The captions of the individual complaints remain the same,
separate verdicts or decisions are rendered, separate judgments are entered and individual bills of
costs are taxed (Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR
ed])"].6
C602:2, at 319 [2006
"E"
Upon information and belief, at the time of the December 11, 2018 orders (Exhibit
hereto), index number 750035/2018 was not assigned to plaintiff Dipilato yet and therefore, no
order exists expressly directing consolidation or a joint trialwith the Dipilato action now in
Richmond and the previously commenced Scibelli action 151036/2017.
Upon information and belief, an order granting at least a joint trial works to accomplish the
purposes of the venue transferred issued on December 11, 2018.
To the extent necessary, itis respectfully requested that the caption be amended to reflect
any reliefthis Court sees fit to grant pursuant to CPLR section 602.
Upon information and belief, a grant of relief pursuant to CPLR section 602 provides further
support for a grant of the leave that plaintiff seeks to include the defendants in the Scibelli action as
defendants in the Dipilato action pursuant to CPLR section 3025 (b). Upon information and belief,
at least arguable questions as to special use warrant leave to include the non-city defendañts from
the Scibelli action and at least arguable questions exist as to whether the municipal defendants
6
Emphasis added
5 of 7
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019
violated duties related to the stop sign including, but not limited to the duty to maintain. See, Fermin
v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 51597(U)7. At a mirtimum
any potential claims of
plaintiff Dipilato as against the defendants that are also defendants in the Scibelli action, if
dismissed, should be dismissed on the merits, after permitting amendment of pleadings to
include said defendants.
Since depositions have not been conducted in the Dipilato action, such testimony is
capable of revealing support for liability against the municipal defendants. For example, ifthe
drivers involved were not familiar with the particular area of roadway or the existence of a stop
sign thereon which was obscured by the overgrowth, negligence of the municipal defendants
should be correctly considered when plaintiff Dipilato has her day in Court. See generally;
Murphy v De Revere, 304 NY 922 (1953); Nuss v State of New York, 301 NY 768 (1950); Rog
v State of New York, 19 AD3d 680 (2d Dept 2005).
A review of the Sammo motion presently pending shows SAMMO seeks dismissal, in
part insisting a lack of a duty to maintain. If this Court agrees dismissal should result, same
decision should only further favor the leave sought herein being granted.
Your affiant is not aware of any papers filed on behalf of the municipal defendants in the
Scibelli action responsive to the Sammo motion currently pending in that action. Upon
information and belief, such silence from the City defendants should reflect that the municipal
defendants are not capable of denying a duty was owed to maintain the growth at the subject stop
sign. See generally; Stiuso v City of New York, 87 NY2d 889, 890 (1995), Lopes v Rostad, 45
NY2d 617, 623 (1978); Federoff v Camperlengo, 215 AD2d 806, 807 (3d Dept 1995); Parada v
City of New York, 205 AD2d 427, 428 (1st Dept 1994); Levine v New York State Thruway
A_uth., 52 AD3d 975, 976-977 (3d Dept 2008).
"D"
Content of decision included at Exhibit hereto
6 of 7
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019
Upon information and belief, to the extent questions of proximate cause involving the
City's liability exist in the Scibelli action, same questions are involved in plaintiff Dipilato's case
and the leave sought should be granted and plaintiff Dipilato should be granted the leave sought
against the defendants in the Scibelli action, including, but not limited to, THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and THE NEW
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, to avoid prejudice to the injured passenger plaintiff, the relief
requested should be granted in all respects.
WHEREFORE, itis respectfully requested that the within motion on behalf of plaintiff,
Esther Dipilato, be granted in all respects, together with such other and further relief in favor of
plaintiff as to this Honorable Court may seem just and proper
Lee 1 L Huttneir, Esq.
SUBIN ASSOCIATES, LLP
Attorney for Plaintiff
23"'
150 Broadway, floor
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212) 285-3800
Sworn to before e this
Î day of, brÇ(a ( , 20
Notary Public
Gutzira Enhankulove
Commissioner of Deeds, City of New Wrk
No. 02-14248
in New York County
Cert.Filed
Cümm!::den Expires on 10-01-2020
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND - ------------- ---------------------X ESTHER DIPILATO, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT Plaintiff, OF MOTION -against- INDEX #: 750035/2018 ANDREW SCIBELLI, SJ FUEL CO, ANTHONY DIPILATO, ALFRED DOTTARIO, JR. and SAMMO, LLC Defendants, --------- ¬----------------------------------X ------------------ --------------------X ANDREW SCIBELLI AND SJ FUEL CO., 1NC., Plaintiff, -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK a/s/h/a THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONA ND THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Defendants, _ _--.____ __ ---------------------X STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK)SS.: Lee M. Huttner, Esq., being duly sworn, deposes and says, under the penalty of perjury and, upon information and belief: That I am associated with the attorney for the plaintiff herein and am familiar with the facts and circumstances herein, except as to those alleged upon information and belief, and as to those I verily believe them to be true. That I make this Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion seeking an order: (1) granting plaintiff Esther Dipilato leave to serve a late notice of claim upon THE CITY OF NEW YORK a/s/h/a THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE NEW 1 of 7 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019 YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, and (2) for leave to amend the complaint to include claims on behalf of plaintiff Esther Dipilato against the CITY defendants, and; (3) granting leave to plaintiff to amend the complaint to include claims against Michael Marcus, Basso Landscaping, and Edward Philips, and; (4) for an order pursuant to CPLR section 602, directing that index number 750035/2018 (Supreme Court, Richmond County) be consolidated with or joined for trialwith index number 151036/2017 (Supreme Court, Richmond County), and, (5)for such other and further relief in favor of plaintiff as this Court deems just and proper. The instant application should be granted in all respects. The following exhibits are attached hereto in support of the instant application: printoutl Exhibit "A": Copy of Elaw for Richmond County Supreme Court Index number 151036/2017 Exhibit "B": Copy of Elaw printout for Richmond County Supreme Court Index number 750035/2018 Exhibit "C": Copy of Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Sammo LLC dated January 8, 2019 (Index 750035/2018) and Attomey Affirmation in Support (exhibits omitted) Exhibit "D": Copy of Plaintiff Dipilato's January 2019 Opposition to Sammo LLC's January 2019 Motion for Summary Judgment (exhibits omitted) Exhibit "E": Copy of Orders issued on December 11, 20182in Supreme Court, Kings County Exhibit "F": Complete Copy of Plaintiff's Motion dated October 11, 2019 It isrespectfully requested the relief sought in the instant application be granted. Itis also respectfully requested that judicial notice be taken, ifnecessary for complete versions of parts of this Court's discussed herein ifnot attached in their entirety as exhibits3. At the time the instant motion is being drafted for service and filing, a motion on behalf of defendant SAMMO LLC (hereinafter SAMMO) is pending in plaintiff Scibelli's action. See Exhibit "A" hereto. The motion is currently returnable on 2/20/19. Your affiant is not personally in 1 Documents at Exhibits A and B Ôreto printedunchanged from resultson screen from search of elaw website, motions/appearances tab thatyour affiant'sofficecaused to be generated. 2 "D" See also,Exhibit to Sammo January 8, 2019 Motion for Summary Judgment 3 See,e.g.;ExhibitC and D hereto 2 of 7 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019 possession of a copy of that Motion pending in the action on behalf of the Scibelli defendants under Supreme Court, Richmond County index number 151036/2017. A motion seeking summary judgment is also pending on behalf of SAMMO in plaintiff "B" Dipilato's action in Supreme Court, Richmond County. See, Exhibit hereto. That motion, dated January 8, 2019, is also currently returnable on 2/20/19. A copy of the Notice of Motion and Attomey Affirmation in Support is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Exhibits are omitted based on concerns for judicial economy. Plaintiff has served and filed opposition to the January 8, 2019 motion. A copy of that Opposition (exhibits omitted herewith) is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". The plaintiff Dipilato's action is currently active in Supreme Court, Richmond County pursuant to Orders directing a transfer of venue issued in Supreme Court, Kings County on "E" November 30, 2018 and entered on December 12, 2018. Same orders are attached at Exhibit hereto. At the time venue was transferred, an application was pending in Supreme Court, Kings County on behalf of plaintiff Esther Dipilato seeking leave to include the same defendants that are named in the related action in Supreme Court, Richmond County bearing index number 151036/2017. A complete copy of that application dated October 11, 2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit "F". That application was not granted or denied in Supreme Court, Kings County. Upon information and belief, the transfer of venue of plaintiff Dipilato's action without decision on said application allows for fresh consideration of said relief herein now that this case is active in Supreme Court, Richmond County. 3 of 7 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019 "F" It isrespectfully requested that the arguments, content, and exhibtis of Exhibit be adopted and incorporated herein and provide support for the relief requested in the instant application. Your affiant is not aware of any opposition served on your affiant's office or filed with the Court on behalf of defendants that plaintiff Dipilato seeks leave to include while the October 2018 motion was pending in Supreme Court, Kings County. "F" The leave sought in Exhibit adopted and incorporated herein should be granted in all respects. "E" A review of Exhibit hereto shows that there is no directive consolidating or joining for number4 trialRichmond County index 151036/2017 with the newly assigned Richmond County index number of 750035/2018. Pursuant to CPLR section 602, an order directing consolidation and/or joinder for trialof numbers Richmond County Index number 151036/2017 with Richmond County index 750035/2018 should issue. Itis respectfully requested that this Court take judicial notice of the motion currently pending on behalf of SAMMO in the action on behalf of the Scibelli Plaintiffs bearing index number 151036/2017. Upon information and belief, that motion relies on the same arguments and same facts and offers identical ifnot almost identical exhibits seeking dismissal of the claims of the Scibelli plaintiffs against SAMMO as offered by SAMMO in the request for dismissal pending in the plaintiff Dipilato's action. That such summary judgment motions are pending at the same moment in each case and said motions present as essentially identical should favor relief pursuant to CPLR section 602, upon information and belief. 4 Referred to herein as Scibelli intennittently action 5 Referred to intermittentlyhereinas Dipilato action 4 of 7 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019 While a review of Exhibits A and B hereto reveals that the actions are at different stages since a Compliance Conference has been held in the Scibelli action and a Preliminary Conference has recently been held in the Dipilato action, at least a joint trialmay be ordered pursuant to CPLR section 602. See; A.C. v D.R., 31 Misc 3d 517, 520-521 (Sup Ct, Nassau County 2011) ["as stated by Vincent Alexander in the commentary to CPLR 602:"An order for joint trial ... leaves the individual actions intact. They are merely brought together in one venue for simultaneous pretrial and trial proccêdings. The captions of the individual complaints remain the same, separate verdicts or decisions are rendered, separate judgments are entered and individual bills of costs are taxed (Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR ed])"].6 C602:2, at 319 [2006 "E" Upon information and belief, at the time of the December 11, 2018 orders (Exhibit hereto), index number 750035/2018 was not assigned to plaintiff Dipilato yet and therefore, no order exists expressly directing consolidation or a joint trialwith the Dipilato action now in Richmond and the previously commenced Scibelli action 151036/2017. Upon information and belief, an order granting at least a joint trial works to accomplish the purposes of the venue transferred issued on December 11, 2018. To the extent necessary, itis respectfully requested that the caption be amended to reflect any reliefthis Court sees fit to grant pursuant to CPLR section 602. Upon information and belief, a grant of relief pursuant to CPLR section 602 provides further support for a grant of the leave that plaintiff seeks to include the defendants in the Scibelli action as defendants in the Dipilato action pursuant to CPLR section 3025 (b). Upon information and belief, at least arguable questions as to special use warrant leave to include the non-city defendañts from the Scibelli action and at least arguable questions exist as to whether the municipal defendants 6 Emphasis added 5 of 7 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019 violated duties related to the stop sign including, but not limited to the duty to maintain. See, Fermin v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 51597(U)7. At a mirtimum any potential claims of plaintiff Dipilato as against the defendants that are also defendants in the Scibelli action, if dismissed, should be dismissed on the merits, after permitting amendment of pleadings to include said defendants. Since depositions have not been conducted in the Dipilato action, such testimony is capable of revealing support for liability against the municipal defendants. For example, ifthe drivers involved were not familiar with the particular area of roadway or the existence of a stop sign thereon which was obscured by the overgrowth, negligence of the municipal defendants should be correctly considered when plaintiff Dipilato has her day in Court. See generally; Murphy v De Revere, 304 NY 922 (1953); Nuss v State of New York, 301 NY 768 (1950); Rog v State of New York, 19 AD3d 680 (2d Dept 2005). A review of the Sammo motion presently pending shows SAMMO seeks dismissal, in part insisting a lack of a duty to maintain. If this Court agrees dismissal should result, same decision should only further favor the leave sought herein being granted. Your affiant is not aware of any papers filed on behalf of the municipal defendants in the Scibelli action responsive to the Sammo motion currently pending in that action. Upon information and belief, such silence from the City defendants should reflect that the municipal defendants are not capable of denying a duty was owed to maintain the growth at the subject stop sign. See generally; Stiuso v City of New York, 87 NY2d 889, 890 (1995), Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623 (1978); Federoff v Camperlengo, 215 AD2d 806, 807 (3d Dept 1995); Parada v City of New York, 205 AD2d 427, 428 (1st Dept 1994); Levine v New York State Thruway A_uth., 52 AD3d 975, 976-977 (3d Dept 2008). "D" Content of decision included at Exhibit hereto 6 of 7 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2019 02:52 PM INDEX NO. 750035/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2019 Upon information and belief, to the extent questions of proximate cause involving the City's liability exist in the Scibelli action, same questions are involved in plaintiff Dipilato's case and the leave sought should be granted and plaintiff Dipilato should be granted the leave sought against the defendants in the Scibelli action, including, but not limited to, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, to avoid prejudice to the injured passenger plaintiff, the relief requested should be granted in all respects. WHEREFORE, itis respectfully requested that the within motion on behalf of plaintiff, Esther Dipilato, be granted in all respects, together with such other and further relief in favor of plaintiff as to this Honorable Court may seem just and proper Lee 1 L Huttneir, Esq. SUBIN ASSOCIATES, LLP Attorney for Plaintiff 23"' 150 Broadway, floor New York, N.Y. 10038 (212) 285-3800 Sworn to before e this Î day of, brÇ(a ( , 20 Notary Public Gutzira Enhankulove Commissioner of Deeds, City of New Wrk No. 02-14248 in New York County Cert.Filed Cümm!::den Expires on 10-01-2020 7 of 7