Opinion
Index No. 160391/2021
07-07-2022
Gabriele Dipierno, SHEILA DIPIERNO, Plaintiff, v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, GARY MOTI, Defendant.
Attorneys for Defendants (Movant) Michael J. Zoller, Esq. Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, P.C. NJ Transit Corp. and Gary Moti Attorneys for Plaintiff Liza Milgrim, Esq. Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Coffinas & Cannavo, P.C.
Unpublished Opinion
Attorneys for Defendants (Movant)
Michael J. Zoller, Esq.
Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, P.C.
NJ Transit Corp. and Gary Moti
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Liza Milgrim, Esq.
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Coffinas & Cannavo, P.C.
James G. Clynes, J.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL.
Upon the foregoing documents and following oral argument, defendants' motion in lieu of filing an answer to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied for the following reasons:
Plaintiffs seek recovery for injuries allegedly sustained from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in New York County.
Defendants, relying on Franchise Tax Bd. of California v Hyatt, 139 S.Ct. 1485 (2019), argues that this matter should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction against defendants because defendants, as extensions of the State of New Jersey, are entitled to sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs opposes the motion.
This court is persuaded by the reasoning set forth in the recent decision and order of the Appellate Division, First Department in Colt v New Jersey Transit Corporation, 2022 NY Slip Op 03343 (May 24, 2022), affirming the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds. In Colt, the First Department framed the issue as whether it should dismiss a personal injury action on the ground of sovereign immunity when the action cannot be commenced in the sovereign's own courts because the injury arose outside of the sovereign's borders and held, after consideration of certain 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 (Id.). Plaintiffs in this case are similarly situated to the plaintiffs in Colt. For the reasons set forth in Colt, the motion to dismiss is denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED the defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.