Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Haddi CHEHELI, Petitioner-Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY,et al., Respondents-Appellants.
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]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 992-, 993
Decided: November 14, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)