(EPISCOPAL) CHURCH, OLD PARISH HOUSE and GRAVEYARDand KEVINH.

Present: Hon.Alison Y. Tuitt Justice Plaintiff JAVIER RUBIO’s motion to compeloutstanding discovery (Seq.

(EPISCOPAL) CHURCH, OLD PARISH HOUSE and GRAVEYARDand KEVIN H. CRUZE’s motion to compel discovery (Seq.

003) is denied as mootpursuantto the parties’ representation to the court that they have resolved the discovery disputes.

Dated: 4 [25 | dhe CHR CRONE iio nccisrmutentwunnieasscnen Z.

(EPISCOPAL) CHURCH, OLD PARISH HOUSE and GRAVEYARDand KEVINH.

Present: Hon.Alison Y. Tuitt Justice Plaintiff JAVIER RUBIO’s motion to compeloutstanding discovery (Seq.

(EPISCOPAL) CHURCH, OLD PARISH HOUSE and GRAVEYARDand KEVIN H. CRUZE’s motion to compel discovery (Seq.

003) is denied as mootpursuantto the parties’ representation to the court that they have resolved the discovery disputes.

Dated: 4 [25 | dhe CHR CRONE iio nccisrmutentwunnieasscnen Z.

Trial Term, Part | 2 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at Civic Center, Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York, on the2Yjrday of feyrapy 2025 Hon.Dvage-fryaal

No. LS Index No. $ }] o105 /2v 23 - against- LCy mibhael CH pay Cathay Paley © Mayo, Ewa are, 30H Deuce Spree LLL) aah Mivael SaCHereBeorgr, Defendant(s) :_ : via yo The following papers numbered 1 to} 5-%¥} read on this motion Notice of Motion - Order to Show Cause and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed Answering Affidavit (Affirmation) Reply Affidavit (Affirmation) Affidavit (Affirmation) Pleadings- Exhibits Stipulations - Minutes Filed Papers .

Papers Numbered 85-993 70 ygetsh ere]fb gn erat|oode ae TS FPPCCUPOA.

fir SVECPA( dePal Preference $5 Feanted Us duo OPES TONe oo QoolVSZaadS02 Plarradt!

Betta Cree CU ATG Te wecila tals Gorrty fice iv, PactY For Clerks yse oply git cntf Ww

for the County ofK ngs, at the Courthouse located at 360 Adams A Ge 7 Street, Brooklyn, N¥ 11201, on the ~ day ofFebruary AF.

There are two cases pending in Kings County arising from the same two-vehicle accident alleged to have occurred on December 29, 2020.

The second case is entitled Alan Celi v. Demetrius Bell & Consolidated Electrical Distributors, IndexNo.

In the instant action defendant Penske Leasing Company brought a motion for surnmary judgment which Judge Montelionegranted in defendant’s favor on April 17, 2024, wherein the instant action was dismissed against Penske Leasing & Rental Company, leaving only tha John Doe and Jane Doe defendants.

In the related action, Index No. 525562/2023, a motion was madeby plaintiff Alan Celi before Judge Velasquez to consolidate both the first and secondactions, and was granted jon

3 emeCourt At IAS Part 99 of tb of the State of New" l<, held in and the County of K 15 , t the for ; 6( Ada ns Courthouse located Street, Brooklyn, N ) 1231, o i the d i.

caption to nameDemetrius Bell & Consolidated Electrical hn Iloe a id Jane as the Distributors ge VIon elione case.

llowi: Alan Celi & Douglas Macias Rubio, tif t Plaintiffs, -against- Bell & Consolidated Dimitrius Electrical Distributors, Inc. Index No.'t )h L 6/20 ,1 | | Defendants.

: ) (18) years of age, and reside the within ORDER in Marshall Dennehey, P.C. for Defendants Attorneys DIMITRIUS BELL and CONSOLIDATED

Via NYSCEF copy of same enclosed addressed wrapper a true in a post-paid by depositing properly care and custody of the United States Postal Service within under the exclusive depository NewYork.

Plaintiff, - Vv - Defendant.

weceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenneneneeensXx The parties have consented to adjourn this action while the criminal action against defendant is proceeding.

Accordingly, the appearance is adjourned to April 23, 2025 at 2:00pm.

151328/2024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2025 2 NONEOF THE DATES IN THIS ORDERMAYBE EXTENDEDWITHOUT ADVANCEAPPROVALBYTHECOURT.

- against - PRIORITY ONE AMBULANCE, INC. and JOSEPH

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the annexed is a true copy of the Decision and Order of Hon.

Wavny Toussaint dated January 21, 2025, which was filed with the Kings County Clerk on January 24, 2025.

Kent Dolan Attorneys for Defendants 425 Madison Avenue, Ste.

Attorneys for Plaintiff 320 Old Country Road, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 516.535.5555 Lucciola Law Group, P.C. Trial Attorneys for Plaintiff 55 Broadway New York, NY 10006 212.482.4400

At an 0ASterrn, Part 70 of the supreme Court of the State of NewYork, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse; at 360 Adams street, Brooklyn,NevrYoric, on the day of January, á025

Background Plaintiff asserts that on August 23, 2016, he sustained personal injuries when his taxicab was struck by Priority's at ambulance, driven by Separta, which allegedly of Union Street and 8th Avenue in Brooklyn, New the intersection ran a red light York.

In the subsequent Bill of Particulars, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, a left shoulder tear of the supraspinatus tendon, disc herniations, impingements and canal stenosis to various regions of the cervical and lumbar spine, with range of motion restrictions, requiring steroid and trigger point injection treatments and the recommendation of cervical fusion surgery, which was performed on August 10, 2021.1 Defendants filed the subject summary judgment motion (Seq.

see also Licari v Elliott, Here, defendants bear the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious as a result of the subject accident injury 229 AD3d481, 482 [2024]).

Having met their burden, plaintiff was obligated to present admissible to defendants' proof issue of fact in opposition to raise a triable (Zuckerman v City of NewYork, 49 NY2d557, 562 [1980]).

At Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, held at the Courthouse, 360 Adamas Street #4 Brooklyn, NY 11201, on the___ day of _______, 2025.

Upon reading and filing the Affirmation of Elena Goor Barron, Esq., dated the ____ day of _______ 2025, it is hereby, ORDERED, that defendants, Carroll Gardens Realty LLC., Michael Mayo, 354 Degraw Street LLC., and Michael Sackler-Berner, show cause at Part of this Court to be held at the Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street #4, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on the _____day of ________, 2025, at _______o’clock in the _________of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard why an Order should not be made:

Granting Plaintiff a trial preference pursuant to CPLR § 3403(a)(4); and Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper; and it is further, ORDERED, that sufficient cause being alleged therefore, let service upon defendants, Carroll Gardens Realty LLC., Michael Mayo, 354 Degraw Street LLC., and Michael Sackler- Berner, of a copy of this Order, together with the papers upon which this Order is granted, by e-filing a conformed copy of this order on the NYS E-Filing web site on or before the ____day of ______, 2025, be deemed sufficient service.

The action against Defendant Elva Mayo has been discontinued

At Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, held at the Courthouse, 360 Adamas Street #4 Brooklyn, NY 11201, on the___ day of _______, 2025.

Upon reading and filing the Affirmation of Elena Goor Barron, Esq., dated the ____ day of _______ 2025, it is hereby, ORDERED, that defendants, Carroll Gardens Realty LLC., Michael Mayo, 354 Degraw Street LLC., and Michael Sackler-Berner, show cause at Part of this Court to be held at the Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street #4, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on the _____day of ________, 2025, at _______o’clock in the _________of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard why an Order should not be made:

Granting Plaintiff a trial preference pursuant to CPLR § 3403(a)(4); and Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper; and it is further, ORDERED, that sufficient cause being alleged therefore, let service upon defendants, Carroll Gardens Realty LLC., Michael Mayo, 354 Degraw Street LLC., and Michael Sackler-

Berner, of a copy of this Order, together with the papers upon which this Order is granted, by e-filing a conformed copy of this order on the NYS E-Filing web site on or before the ____day of ______, 2025, be deemed sufficient service.

The action against Defendant Elva Mayo has been discontinued

At an 0ASterrn, Part 70 of the supreme Court of the State of NewYork, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse; at 360 Adams street, Brooklyn,NevrYoric, on the day of January, á025

Background Plaintiff asserts that on August 23, 2016, he sustained personal injuries when his taxicab was struck by Priority's at ambulance, driven by Separta, which allegedly of Union Street and 8th Avenue in Brooklyn, New the intersection ran a red light York.

In the subsequent Bill of Particulars, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, a left shoulder tear of the supraspinatus tendon, disc herniations, impingements and canal stenosis to various regions of the cervical and lumbar spine, with range of motion restrictions, requiring steroid and trigger point injection treatments and the recommendation of cervical fusion surgery, which was performed on August 10, 2021.1 Defendants filed the subject summary judgment motion (Seq.

see also Licari v Elliott, Here, defendants bear the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious as a result of the subject accident injury 229 AD3d481, 482 [2024]).

Having met their burden, plaintiff was obligated to present admissible to defendants' proof issue of fact in opposition to raise a triable (Zuckerman v City of NewYork, 49 NY2d557, 562 [1980]).

At an IAS:Term, Part 70 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County ofKings, at the Courthouse; at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn,NewYork, on the 2] Stday of January, 2025,

Background Plaintiff asserts that on August 23, 2016, he sustained personal injuries when his taxicab wasstruck by Priority’s ambulance, driven by Scparta, which allegedly ran a red light at the intersection of Union Street and 8" Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.

Here, defendants bearthe initial burden of establishing a primafacie case, by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form,that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result ofthe subject accident as a matter of law (Moon v Ramirez, 229 AD3d 481, 482 [2024]).

If defendants make a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to plaintiff to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to create a material issue of fact necessitating a trial (A/varez, 68 NY2d at 324).

Having mettheir burden,plaintiff was obligated to present admissible proofto raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendants’ primafacie showing (Zuckermanv City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).