Defendant, CITY MEDICAL OF UPPER EAST SIDE PLLC d/b/a CityMD, by their attorneys, GARSON & JAKUB LLP, answers the plaintiff’s Verified Complaint as follows, upon information and belief:

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in the paragraph of the Complaint designed “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, “26”, “35” and “36”, and refers all questions of fact to the jury.

Denies in the form alleged each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs of the Verified Complaint designated “7”, “8”, “9” and “16” excepts admits that CITY MEDICAL OF UPPER EAST SIDE PLLC was and is a domestic professional service limited liability company duly organized under the laws of the State of New York, authorized to do business in the State of New York.

Defendant invokes the protection of Public Health Law §2805(d)(4) with respect to the alleged cause of action for informed consent, and reserve all rights pursuant thereto.

WHEREFORE, defendant, CITY MEDICAL OF UPPER EAST SIDE PLLC d/b/a CityMD demands judgment dismissing the Verified Complaint herein, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,41,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51, 52,53,54,55,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,121, were read on this motion to/for Upon the foregoing documents and following oral argument it is ordered that the motion by Defendants New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. (NJT) pursuant to CPLR 32l l (a) (2) seeking an order dismissing the Complaint for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction is decided as follows: Plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries allegedly sustained on January 16,2019 as a

This court is persuaded by the reasoning set forth in the decision and order ofthe Appellate Division, First Department in Colt v New Jersey Tr. Corp.,206 AD3d 12 (May 24,2022), appeal dismissed by, J9 NY3d 954 Q{ov 22,2022), affirming the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds.

lt Colt,the First Department framed the issue as whether it should dismiss a personal injury action on the ground of sovereign immunity '158306/2019 WALLACH, SCOTT vs. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP Motion No. 001 Page 'l of 2

when the action cannot be commenced in the sovereign's own courts because the injury arose outside ofthe sovereign's borders and held, after consideration ofcertain factors, that dismissal of the action against the NJT defendants would be inappropriate because it would leave plaintiffs and similarly situated plaintiffs without a judicial forum (1d).

For the reasons set forth in Colt, NJT's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department

PRESENT: Hon.

Troy K. Webber, Jeffrey K. Oing David Friedman Peter H. Moulton Tanya R. Kennedy,

Motion No. Index No. Case No. 2022-05188 158309/17 2021-01180 Defendants-appellants having moved for reargument of, or in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court, entered on May 24, 2022 (Appeal No. 14967), Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, It is ordered that so much of the motion seeking reargument is denied, and that branch of the motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted, and this Court, pursuant to CPLR 5713, certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: Was the order of Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?

This Court further certifies that its determination was made as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,41,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51, 52,53,54,55,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,121, were read on this motion to/for Upon the foregoing documents and following oral argument it is ordered that the motion by Defendants New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. (NJT) pursuant to CPLR 32l l (a) (2) seeking an order dismissing the Complaint for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction is decided as follows: Plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries allegedly sustained on January 16,2019 as a

In December 2021, NJT filed the instant motion, relying on Franchise Tax Bd.

This court is persuaded by the reasoning set forth in the decision and order ofthe Appellate Division, First Department in Colt v New Jersey Tr. Corp.,206 AD3d 12 (May 24,2022), appeal dismissed by, J9 NY3d 954 Q{ov 22,2022), affirming the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds.

lt Colt,the First Department framed the issue as whether it should dismiss a personal injury action on the ground of sovereign immunity '158306/2019 WALLACH, SCOTT vs. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP Motion No. 001 Page 'l of 2 when the action cannot be commenced in the sovereign's own courts because the injury arose outside ofthe sovereign's borders and held, after consideration ofcertain factors, that dismissal of the action against the NJT defendants would be inappropriate because it would leave plaintiffs and similarly situated plaintiffs without a judicial forum (1d).

For the reasons set forth in Colt, NJT's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

---------..____ __.------- __________..x G.D., an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, JESSICADILLON, and JESSICADILLON, Individually, Plaintiff, -against-

and COUNTYOFNASSAU.

IT IS HEREBYSTIPULATEDANDAGREED,by and between the attorneys the for G.D., an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, JESSICADILLON, Individually, and Defendant, COUNTYOFNASSAU,("County Defendants") herein that County Defendants hereby deemthe summonsand verified Office ofthe Nassau served by Plaintiffuponthe complaint County to be served timely, waive the defense for and insufficiency of service lack ofjurisdiction as to the County Defendants, on the ground of nonservice of process, regarding the aforesaid summonsand verified complaint, and that the County Defendants to answer is hereby the time for to be extended up to including January 20, 2025. stipulated IT IS FURTHERSTIPULATEDANDAGREED,that the parties' facsimile for purposes of this stipulation.

shall be deemed to be originals electronic signatures or Dated: Mineola, NewYork December 12, 2024 SCHRE1ER& WACHSMAN,LLP By: Marea Wachsman, Esq.

(Parties seeking court referred ADR shall check the box and wait further instruction from the court)*** IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREEDbyand between or amongthe parties named below asfollows: Av TIO!

sD [en TINY.

DIS Cove ny Well SOT Dam sia Ay pale] Dek GVSed Us Alm UC OS

***The parties request a virtual confere YES _—s-—- NO Numberof attorneys attending the virtual th the court*** conference __ Dated:

G.D., an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian,

Individually Index No. 615331/2024 Plaintiff/ Petitioner, -against-

IT IS HEREBYSTIPULATEDANDAGREEDby and between the attorneys the Plaintiff, for G.D., an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian JESSICA DILLON.

Individually, and Defendant, COUNTYOFNASSAU,("County Defendants") that County Defendants herein hereby deemthe summonsand verified upon the Office of the complaint served by plaintiff lack of jurisdiction to be served timely, waive the defense for and Nassau County Attorney as to the County Defendants, on the ground of nonservice of service of process, insufficiency summonsand verified complaint, and that the time for the County regarding the aforesaid to be extended up to and including December 20, Defendants to answer is hereby stipulated 2024. or IT IS FURTHERSTIPULATEDAND AGREED,that parties' the facsimile shall be deemed to be original for purposes of this stipulation.

signatures signatures electronic Dated: Mineola, NewYork November22, 2024