Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth.
2011 NY Slip Op 09190 [90 AD3d 552]
Dcmbr 20, 2011
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 1, 2012


Roberto Rodriguez, Respondent,
v
New York City TransitAuthority, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[*1]Office of the General Counsel, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, (Kavita K.Bhatt of counsel), for appellant.

Edward Friedman, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered September 14,2010, which denied the motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) todismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed.

Plaintiff alleges that while he was a passenger on the subway, he witnessed an individualthreatening a woman. When he reported this to defendant Johnson, who was the conductor,Johnson took no action. The individual continued threatening the woman, which promptedplaintiff to pull the emergency cord on the subway car. Johnson then called the police andaccording to plaintiff, when the police responded, Johnson falsely told them that plaintiff hadpunched and kicked him. Plaintiff was arrested, charged and subsequently processed through thecourt system. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of claim and his complaint against NYCTA includedcauses of action for negligent hiring and supervision of Johnson.

Plaintiff's notice of claim was very detailed, specifying the date and the time that he wastraveling on an E train from Manhattan to Queens, and that the conductor "John Doe" called thepolice and had plaintiff arrested by Police Officer Anthony Rosales. The notice was sufficientlydetailed to enable the City to investigate the occurrence (see generally Goodwin v New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 63,68 [2007]) and to understand the nature of the claim (see Brown v City of New York, 95NY2d 389, 393 [2000]). Moreover, the notice asserted the claims of negligent hiring andsupervision, thus providing defendant, who had the ability to ascertain the identity of theconductor and to examine the conductor's personnel files, the opportunity to investigate thoseallegations (compare Shmueli v New York City Police Dept., 295 AD2d 271 [2002][dismissing claim against district attorney for negligent hiring where notice of claim failed toassert any facts from which claim could be gleaned]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny,Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 28 Misc 3d 1237(A), 2010NY Slip Op 51628(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.