Vargas v. Mta Bus Co. (Dec. 15, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
Dec. 15, 2025
Disposition
Motion Granted
Panel
Hon; Tsai (Justice)
Vargas v. MTA Bus Co., 2026 WL 1811875 (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1811875 (N.Y.Sup.) (Trial Order)Supreme Court of New York.New York CountyNancy VARGAS, Plaintiff,v.MTA BUS COMPANY, Time Warner EntertainmentCompany, L.P., Neil Smith, Ambrose Grant, Defendant.No. 150611/2019.June 12, 2026.*1 Part 21Motion Date 05/09/2026Motion Seq. No. 006Decision + Order on MotionPresent: Hon. Richard A. Tsai, Justice.The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 006) 146-175 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS.Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that the motion by Carol Paez Rodriguez to amend this court's decision andorder dated December 15, 2025 to include a “multi-action caption” and to direct issuance of an order in Paez Rodriguez v TimeWarner Entertainment et al., Index No. 159709/2019 and for other relief as may be just, proper, and equitable is GRANTEDIN PART TO THE EXTENT THAT the prior decision and order December 15, 2025 is hereby amended to add, after the thirddecretal paragraph of the prior decision and order dated December 15, 2025, the following:And it is hereby ORDERED that the branch of the motion by defendants Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.,and Ambrose N. Grant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against these defendants in PaezRodriguez v Timer Warner Entertainment et al., Index No. 159709/2019 is DENIED, without prejudice to a motion forsummary judgment by these defendants to be filed in Paez Rodriguez under its own index number.and it is furtherORDERED that the instant motion is otherwise denied.By a decision and order dated July 20, 2020, the judge previously assigned to this matter had granted consolidation, under thisindex number of this matter, with two other actions, Golding v MTA Bus Company, Index No. 452144/2022, and Paez Rodriguezv Time Warner Entertainment, Index No. 159709/2019 (see Exhibit A in support of motion [NYSCEF Doc. No. 148]).However, by an amended decision and order dated August 12, 2021, all three matters were “consolidated in this court forpurposes of joint discovery and trial,” and “each action shall maintain separate pleadings and captions, and will file separatecertificates of readiness and notes of issue” (see Exhibit B in support of motion [NYSCEF Doc. No. 149]).
Vargas v. MTA Bus Co., 2026 WL 1811875 (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2On March 14, 2025, defendants Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP., and Ambrose N. Grant (collectively, the TimeWarner Defendants) filed, under the index number in this action, a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaintsin this action and in Paez Rodriguez v Time Warner Entertainment et al., Index No. 159709/2019 as against the Time WarnerDefendants (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 111-135). The notice of motion contained the caption of all three actions that had been“consolidated for purposes of joint discovery and trial.” Paez Rodriguez opposed the motion (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 137).By decision and order dated and entered December 15, 2025, this court granted the Time Warner Defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and dismissing the cross-claims by and against the Time WarnerDefendants (see Exhibit C in support of motion [NYSCEF Doc. No. 150]).Paez Rodriguez's appellate counsel asserts that, when he filed a notice of appeal in this action, the County Clerk rejected thenotice of appeal, on the grounds that “An Order from one action cannot be appealed in another action. Please file your Noticeof Appeal under index no. 150611/2019” (see Exhibit H in support of motion [NYSCEF Doc. No. 155]). However, when PaezRodriguez attempted to file a notice of appeal under that index number, the NYSCEF clerk removed the notice of appeal, stating,“This is not a Previous Paid filing” (see Exhibit J in support of motion [NYSCEF Doc. No. 157]).*2 Paez Rodriguez now moves, by order to show cause, for amendment of the decision and order dated and entered December15, 2025 to reflect the caption of all three cases that were “consolidated for purposes of joint discovery and trial” and for filingof that amended decision in Paez Rodriguez v Time Warner Entertainment et al., Index No. 159709/2019.The Time Warner Defendants maintain that “the parties consistently litigated the matter utilizing the consolidated multi-actioncaption and consolidated motion practice” (affirmation of Time Warner Defendants' counsel 5 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 175]). Thus,they “do not oppose relief solely to the limited extent necessary to correct any procedural, administrative, or caption-relatedirregularity necessary to ensure that this Court's December 15, 2025 Decision and order remains effective and enforceable asagainst Rodriguez in both the consolidated action and the separately maintained Rodriguez action” (id. 10).Oral argument was held on June 11, 2026, which did not take place on the stenographic record.Amendment of the prior decision and order dated December 15, 2025 to reflect the captions of all three cases and for filing ofthe decision in Paez Rodriguez v Time Warner Entertainment et al., Index No. 159709/2019 is denied.The three cases were not consolidated under one index number. As indicated in the amended decision and order dated August12, 2021, “each action shall maintain separate pleadings and captions, and will file separate certificates of readiness and notesof issue.” Thus, the three cases were joined for trial, not consolidated. “ ‘Joint trial, like consolidation, puts two or more actionstogether, but with joint trial, the actions maintain their separate identities' ” (Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v New YorkState Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 176 AD3d 1433, 1436 [3d Dept 2019] [citations omitted]).Unfortunately, nothing in the CPLR permits “consolidated motion practice”--that is, for cases that are joined for trial, the CPLRdoes not permit a party to file a single motion that will apply to all the cases that are joined for trial.While the parties can use a caption that bears the index numbers of all the cases that are joined for trial, each action neverthelessmaintains its separate identity and its own index number. So if a party wishes to file a motion that applies to all the cases thatare joined for trial, the identical motion must be filed under the index number of each joined action, and the County Clerk's feemust be paid for each motion. As a practical matter, NYSCEF is neither designed nor configured to accept the filing of a singleset of motion papers under multiple, separate index numbers.Filing a single motion under the index number of one case does not achieve the effect of “consolidated motion practice,”regardless of whether a “consolidated” caption is used. There is simply no record of a motion filed in the other cases joinedfor trial.
Vargas v. MTA Bus Co., 2026 WL 1811875 (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3The solution which Paez Rodriguez proposes--filing of the decision and order dated December 15, 2025 under the index numberin Paez Rodriguez v Time Warner Entertainment et al.--does not accomplish the purpose of this order to show cause, which isto allow Paez Rodriguez to appeal the decision and order dated and entered December 15, 2025.*3 With no record of a notice of motion being filed in the other cases joined for trial, a decision and order that is filed inthose other cases could be considered as a decision and order that was issued sua sponte. “An order issued sua sponte does notdecide a motion made on notice and therefore is not appealable as of right” (Joycelyn E. v Julianne R., 234 AD3d 477, 478[1st Dept 2025]). In this court's view, the solution which Paez Rodriguez proposes would actually frustrate Paez Rodriguez'sappeal of the prior decision and order.Rather, the solution is for the Time Warner Defendants to file their motion for summary judgment in Paez Rodriguez v TimeWarner Entertainment et al., Index No. Index No. 159709/2019. At oral argument, the Time Warner Defendants and PaezRodriguez entered into a so-ordered stipulation for a briefing schedule to file identical motion papers in Paez Rodriguez.1At oral argument, Paez Rodriguez was under the belief that this court had granted summary judgment dismissing the complaintin Paez Rodriguez as against the Time Warner Defendants, which is why Paez Rodriguez wants to appeal the prior decision andorder. It became apparent that this court had overlooked that the Time Warner Defendants had moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint in Paez Rodriguez as against them.Thus, the court will amend its prior decision and order to clarify that the branch of the Time Warner Defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims in Paez Rodriguez as against them is denied, without prejudiceto a motion for summary judgment filed in Paez Rodriguez. That branch is denied because the relief sought was improperlybrought under the wrong index number.6/12/2026DATEENTER:<<signature>>RICHARD TSAI, J.S.C.Footnotes1At oral argument, appellate counsel for Paez Rodriguez disclosed that Paez Rodriguez's opposition papers contained citations to non-existent cases. Appellate counsel did not want to imply that, by filing the identical opposition papers in Paez Rodriguez, appellatecounsel was adopting the papers as their own representations to the court.The prior decision and order acknowledged the non-existent cases, but the proposition of law in those non-existent citations was, infact, true. As the filing of identical motion papers in Paez Rodriguez is intended to cure a mistaken belief that “consolidated motionpractice” was permissible, this court will not attribute the non-existent citations to appellate counsel for Paez Rodriguez.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access