Opinion
992-, 993 Index No. 156433/20 Case Nos. 2020-04121, 2020-04122
11-14-2023
In the Matter of Haddi CHEHELI, Petitioner-Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Armienti, DeBellis & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for appellants.
Armienti, DeBellis & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for appellants.
Kapnick, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered October 1, 2020, which granted petitioner's CPLR 3102(c) motion seeking pre-action disclosure of video recordings, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 14, 2020, which, sua sponte, extended the date of production and directed respondents to submit an affidavit regarding their search, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
Since respondents have already turned over the onboard bus camera video recordings petitioner seeks in the instant application, and petitioner has already filed a summons and complaint based on his alleged fall in Supreme Court, Queens County, this appeal is moot (see Scaba v. Scaba, 99 A.D.3d 610, 611, 953 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2012] ; see generally City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 507, 903 N.Y.S.2d 304, 929 N.E.2d 366 [2010] ). Respondents' arguments to the contrary are unavailing, as the pre-action disclosure application at issue here, though likely to recur, is not likely to evade review and is neither substantial nor novel (see Matter of Puerto v. Doar, 142 A.D.3d 34, 44, 34 N.Y.S.3d 409 [1st Dept. 2016], citing Matter of Chenier v. Richard W., 82 N.Y.2d 830, 832, 606 N.Y.S.2d 143, 626 N.E.2d 928 [1993] ).
The sua sponte order is not appealable as of right (see Unanue v. Rennert, 39 A.D.3d 289, 290, 831 N.Y.S.2d 904 [1st Dept. 2007] ).