Garcia v Trident Gen. Contr. LLC 2022 NY Slip Op 34154(U) December 8, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151183/2022 Judge: William Perry Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 151183/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. WILLIAM PERRY Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X KERLIN GARCIA INDEX NO. 23 151183/2022 MOTION DATE Petitioner, 02/07/2022 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. -vDECISION + ORDER ON MOTION TRIDENT GENERAL CONTRACTING LLC, Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 8, 9 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY - PRE-ACTION . In this action for personal injuries, petitioner, Kerlin Garcia, moves, by order to show filed on February 7, 2022, cause for an order pursuant to CPLR 3102 for pre-action discovery, directing respondent, Trident General Contracting LLC (Trident), to immediately turn over to petitioner’s counsel certain discovery documents. Specifically, petitioner seeks: copies of any and all documents and information within Trident’s possession concerning petitioner’s employment records; copies of any and all documents regarding contracts for the work Trident was performing at 301 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (the Construction site); copies of any accident reports (including a copy of the C-2 “Employer's First Report of Work-Related Injury/Illness”) concerning petitioner’s accident on August 17, 2021 (the accident); copies of any and all non-privileged emails or other correspondence concerning the accident; copies of any and all photos or videos (in color if originally in color) concerning the accident; a complete copy of all employment records concerning petitioner; copies of all OSHA reports, citations, or other documents concerning the accident; copies of any and all contracts with owner, lessee, general contractor and/or sub-contractors, concerning the work Trident was performing at the 151183/2022 GARCIA, KERLIN vs. TRIDENT GENERAL CONTRACTING LLC Motion No. 001 [* 1] 1 of 4 Page 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 151183/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2022 Construction site on August 17, 2021, all of which will help to identify potentially liable defendants, and facilitate the drafting of a proper complaint. Respondent submits no opposition. Background On August 17, 2021, petitioner was employed by Trident, and was performing construction related work when he was injured at the Construction Site which resulted in allegedly severe injuries (petition, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1). Petitioner’s counsel made attempts to obtain the purportedly relevant documents on August 31, 2021, December 8, 2021 (see petitioner exhibits B, C respectively, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 5 & 6). On December 22, 2021, plaintiff’s counsel called Trident at (718) 597-1369 and left a voicemail requesting the documents sought herein and advising that absent a response the instant motion would be filed (Horowitz affirmation at ¶ 9, NYSCEF Doc. No. 3). Counsel submits a “proof of delivery” signed for by “T. Henchy” at the front desk, on February 17, 2022, to respondent at 1160 Commerce Avenue, New York 10462, though there is nothing in the document reflecting what was actually delivered. To date, Trident has not responded to petitioner’s counsel nor has there been an opposition to the motion. Discussion CPLR 3102 (c) authorizes a court to order disclosure prior to the commencement of an action “to aid in bringing an action.” A plaintiff may petition the court in order to identify potential defendants (Matter of Stump v 209 E. 56th Street Corp., 212 AD2d 410, 410 [1st Dept 1995]), or to determine the way in which the complaint should be framed (Liberty Imports v Bourguet, 146 AD2d 535, 536 [1st Dept 1989]). 151183/2022 GARCIA, KERLIN vs. TRIDENT GENERAL CONTRACTING LLC Motion No. 001 [* 2] 2 of 4 Page 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 151183/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2022 “However, the law is settled that disclosure in advance of service of a summons and complaint is available only where there is a demonstration that the party bringing such a petition has a meritorious cause of action and that the information being sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong. Thus, while a pre-action examination may be appropriate to facilitate accurate pleading, it is not permissible as a fishing expedition to ascertain whether a cause of action exists” (Liberty Imports v Bourget, 146 AD2d at 536; see also Matter of Uddin v New York City Tr. Auth., 27 AD3d 265, 265 [1st Dept 2006]; Holzman v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 271 AD2d 346, 347 [1st Dept 2000]). Here, as in Holzman, petitioner fails to meet his burden in demonstrating that he has a meritorious cause of action “as he has failed to allege any facts supporting his bare claim that respondents were negligent and this this negligence cause his injury” (Holzman, 271 AD2d at 347). Here, petitioner merely alleges that he was injured on the third floor of the Construction site, which rendered him unable to work (petition, ¶ 3, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1; Horowitz affirmation, ¶ 4, NYSCEF Doc. No. 3). He provides no allegations as to what specific information he needs to substantiate his claim (cf. Curtis v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 34015[U], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2022]). Accordingly, though unopposed, the petition is denied (Matter of Stump v 209 E. 56th St. Corp., 212 AD2d 410 [1st Dept 1995]; Matter of Lodato, 2020 WL 5406015 [Sup Ct, NY County Sept. 3, 2020, index No. 805365/2019, Crane, J.]). While pre-action discovery is also appropriate where a petitioner wishes to preserve evidence, as here, petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing to justify discovery at this time (see e.g., Barash v Waldorf Astoria, 2003 NY Slip Op 50642[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2003]; cf. Son v 315 Mgt. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 32983[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2018]). Conclusion Accordingly, it is 151183/2022 GARCIA, KERLIN vs. TRIDENT GENERAL CONTRACTING LLC Motion No. 001 [* 3] 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 151183/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2022 ORDERED that the Petition and application, motion sequence number 001, is denied without prejudice to a further application on a proper showing. 12/8/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: $SIG$ WILLIAM PERRY, J.S.C. X CASE DISPOSED GRANTED X • DENIED APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 151183/2022 GARCIA, KERLIN vs. TRIDENT GENERAL CONTRACTING LLC Motion No. 001 [* 4] 4 of 4 • • OTHER REFERENCE Page 4 of 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.