Niurka Andino, Respondent-Appellant,v.Ronald Mills, et al., Appellants-Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)BriefN.Y.April 24, 2018To be Argued by: TIMOTHY J. O’SHAUGHNESSY (Time Requested: 30 Minutes) Court of Appeals of the State of New York O NIURKA ANDINO, Respondent-Appellant, – against – RONALD MILLS and THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellants-Respondents. (See inside cover for continuation of caption) BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS LAWRENCE HEISLER, ESQ. Executive Assistant General Counsel Attorney for Appellants-Respondents 130 Livingston Street Brooklyn, New York 11201 (718) 694-3852 timothy.o’shaughnessy@nyct.com Of Counsel: Dated: July 26, 2017 TIMOTHY J. O’SHAUGHNESSY Bronx County Clerk’s Index No.: 26798/2004 APPELLATE INNOVATIONS (914) 948-2240 11044 Court of Appeals No. APL-2017-00067 _____________________________ RONALD MILLS and THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Third-Party Plaintiffs, – against – NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT and RAFAEL VILLEGAS, Third-Party Defendants. _____________________________ STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5531 Court of Appeals of the State of New York O NIURKA ANDINO, Respondent-Appellant, – against – RONALD MILLS and THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellants-Respondents. (See record cover for complete caption) 1 The Index Number in the Original Court below is 26798/2004. 2. The names of the original parties are as set forth above. There has been no change in the names of the parties. 3. The action was commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. 4. The action was commenced on or about December 28, 2004 by filing of a Summons and Verified Complaint. Issue was then joined on March 11, 2005 by service of a Verified Answer. 5. This is an action brought about by personal injury. 6. This appeal is from the Judgment of Honorable Lizbeth Gonzalez of the Bronx County Supreme Court, entered on June 25, 2014. An Appeal is now being taken, to the New York State Court of Appeals, from a Decision and Order of the Appellate Division, First Department, entered on January 5, 2016. Defendants were granted Leave to Appeal to New York State Court of Appeals by Appellate Division Decision and Order, dated April 11, 2017. 7. The Appeal is being perfected on a full reproduced record. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...................................................................................... 3 FACTS ....................................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE A COLLATERAL SOURCE AND MUST BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE AWARDS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS AND LOSS OF PENSION BENEFITS ....................................... 8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 19 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Bryant v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 592 (1999) ....................................................................................... 10 Iazzetti v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 140 (1st Dept., 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 94 N.Y.2d 183 (1999) ............................... 11, 15, 17, 18 Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority, 88 A.D.3d 321 (1st Dept., 2011) ....................................................................... 12 Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development Agency, 87 N.Y.2d 81 (1995) ............................................................................... 9, 10, 16 Terranova v. New York City Transit Authority, 49 A.D.3d 10 (2d Dept., 2007), leave to appeal denied, 11 N.Y.3d 708 (2008) ..................................... 12, 15, 16 Rules, Laws and Statutes: C.P.L.R. 4545 ................................................................................................... Passim N.Y.C. Admin. Code 13-175 ................................................................................... 11 N.Y.C. Admin. Code 13-254 ....................................................................... 13, 14, 16 N.Y.C. Admin. Code 13-258 ................................................................................... 13 N.Y.C. Charter 1115 ................................................................................................ 14 N.Y.C. Charter 1117 ............................................................................................ 6, 14 - 1 - COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ NIURKA ANDINO, Respondent-Appellant, - against - RONALD MILLS and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellants-Respondents. _ ___________________________________________ RONALD MILLS and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Third-Party Plaintiff, - against - NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT and RAFAEL VILLEGAS, Third-Party Defendants. _ ___________________________________________ BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS- RESPONDENTS ______________________ _______________________ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an action for personal injuries. Plaintiff was a police officer riding in a police car when the car was involved in a collision with a vehicle owned by - 2 - Defendant New York City Transit Authority and operated by its employee, Defendant Ronald Mills (collectively, “Transit”). Although there were liability issues at trial, the jury found that the driver of the Transit vehicle was 100 percent responsible for the accident and that the driver of the police car was not at fault. On appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, that Court reduced the award for pain and suffering and rendered other rulings and an amended judgment was entered (1039-42, 1043-51).1 As relevant to the appeal in this Court, Transit challenged the Supreme Court’s holding that the accident disability retirement benefits that plaintiff receives from the Police Pension Fund are not a collateral source to be set off against plaintiff’s recoveries for loss of wages and loss of service pension benefits. The Appellate Division agreed with Transit that the accident disability retirement benefits should be set off against plaintiff’s recovery for lost service pension benefits but affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling that the accident disability retirement benefits should not be set off against plaintiff’s recovery for lost earnings. The Appellate Division granted the motions of Transit and plaintiff for leave to appeal to this Court from the amended judgment (1052-53). 1 Numbers in parentheses refer to pages in the Record on Appeal. - 3 - QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Appellate Division err in concluding that plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits should not be set off against her award for lost wages? We respectfully submit that this question must be answered in the affirmative. 2. Was the Appellate Division correct in agreeing with Transit that plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits should be set off against her recovery for lost service pension benefits? We respectfully submit that this question must be answered in the affirmative. FACTS Plaintiff returned to work in 2009 after the accident but applied for accident disability retirement and her application was granted (see 642-53). Plaintiff’s last day as a police officer was August 30, 2009 (1126b, 52). She has not worked at any job since then (1126b). - 4 - The jury awarded the following damages (1452b-53b): Past lost earnings $ 300,000 Past pain and suffering 900,000 Future lost earnings 2,400,000 Future medical expenses 2,100,000 Future loss of pension 2,600,000 Future pain and suffering 23,000,000 All future awards were made over 37 years (1453b-54b). At the collateral source hearing, discussed below, the remaining parties stipulated to conform the jury’s awards to the proof for past and future lost earnings and future loss of pension. This stipulation was without prejudice to Transit’s right to challenge the amounts of the verdict (77, 1008). The stipulated figures are as follows (77-78, 1008): Past lost earnings $ 283,422 Future lost earnings 2,392,512 Future loss of pension 2,490,000 The parties also stipulated that the future lost earnings would be awarded over 19.24 years, until plaintiff’s expected retirement age, and that the future lost - 5 - pension award would be payable over 17.7 years, the amount of time plaintiff is expected to live after her expected retirement age (92-93, 1008). As noted, a collateral source hearing was held. As here relevant, the testimony was as follows. Nicole Giambarrese, the acting general counsel for the Police Pension Fund, testified as follows (17-18). She testified generally about the statutory, New York City Charter and New York City Administrative Code provisions relevant to pensions for police officers. Here, the Pension Fund’s Medical Board found that plaintiff was disabled from police work and the Pension Fund’s Board of Trustees found that she was disabled by an accident in the line of duty, so that she would receive an accident disability pension as opposed to a service pension or an ordinary disability pension (see 642-53). Her last day employed at the Police Department was August 30, 2009; she received salary through that date and from that date forward she received accident disability retirement benefits (52-53). Plaintiff will receive accident disability payments until she passes away (59). There are circumstances in which the accident disability payments could be reduced or suspended, however (59). Until the twentieth anniversary of plaintiff’s becoming a police officer, there is a maximum amount that plaintiff may earn in - 6 - addition to her accident disability payments; in 2013 that amount was about $68,000, which by chance is approximately the amount of her accident disability payments (60-61). N.Y.C. Charter 1117. Before the twentieth anniversary of her joining the Police Department, which would be the day on which, in the absence of her accident, she first could have retired for service, she will be required to file annually a financial disclosure questionnaire indicating all of her earnings (60). After the 20th anniversary, this earnings cap no longer applies (66-67). Plaintiff’s accident disability payments would be reduced only if she went into the employ of the State of New York or one of its subdivisions (67). Transit called economist Fred Goldman to state his calculation of the amount of the accident disability retirement payments that plaintiff received before the verdict and will have received from the date of the verdict to her life expectancy. He calculated these figures to be $247,066 for pre-verdict payments and $2,554,304 for post-verdict payments (96, 104; see 106, 116, 117 [correct figure is $2,554,304 not $2,544,304]). Transit had argued that the accident disability payments should be deducted from the awards to plaintiff for lost earnings and loss of pension benefits (994- 1007). C.P.L.R. 4545. Plaintiff argued that there should be no reduction (1009- - 7 - 17). In a decision issued after the collateral source hearing, the Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff (23a-28a). As noted, the Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court that accident disability retirement benefits are not a collateral source as to plaintiff’s lost earnings but agreed with Transit that the Supreme Court erred in concluding that accident disability retirement benefits are not a collateral source as to plaintiff’s lost service pension benefits (1041-42). The Appellate Division did not disclose its reasoning. - 8 - ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE A COLLATERAL SOURCE AND MUST BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE AWARDS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS AND LOSS OF PENSION BENEFITS. Former C.P.L.R. 4545(c), which applies to the present action, provided in relevant part2: In any action brought to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, where the plaintiff seeks to recover for the cost of medical care, dental care, custodial care or rehabilitation services, loss of earnings or other economic loss, evidence shall be admissible for consideration by the court to establish that any such past or future cost or expense was or will, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified, in whole or in part, from any collateral source, such as insurance except for life insurance, social security (except those benefits provided under title XVIII of the social security act), workers’ compensation or employee benefit programs (except such collateral sources entitled by law to liens against any recovery of the plaintiff). If the court finds that any such cost or expense was or will, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified from any collateral source, it shall reduce the amount of the award by such finding …. 2 The 2009 amendments to C.P.L.R. 4545, as relevant here, transferred the provisions of former 4545(c) to 4545(a). This action is governed by C.P.L.R. 4545 as it existed before the 2009 amendments because this action was commenced before November 23, 2009. L 2009 ch 494 §§2, 9. - 9 - Here, plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits should be subtracted from both the award for lost earnings, past and future, and the award for loss of service pension benefits, as discussed below. (A) Former C.P.L.R. 4545(c) was addressed by this Court in Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development Agency, 87 N.Y.2d 81 (1995). Among other things, the jury awarded plaintiff damages for past and future lost earnings and lost pension benefits. The plaintiff was to receive disability retirement benefits over the rest of his lifetime. The Supreme Court found that the disability retirement benefits were a collateral source to be set off against the recoveries for both lost earnings and lost pension benefits but the Appellate Division found that the disability retirement benefits were to be set off against the recovery for lost pension benefits only. 211 A.D.2d 997 (3d Dept., 1995). The case came to this Court on the third-party defendant’s argument that all collateral source payments should be set off against the total payments for economic loss regardless of the nature or purpose of the collateral source payments and the types of economic loss for which the plaintiff had a recovery. This Court concluded, based on the language of the statute, that “only those collateral source - 10 - payments that actually replace a particular category of awarded economic loss may be used to reduce” the verdict. Id. at 87. This Court then moved on to the question of whether the Appellate Division was correct in determining that the disability retirement benefits should not be set off against the award for lost earnings and health and welfare benefits. This Court noted that the terms of the plaintiff’s disability pension permitted him, despite his retirement as an ironworker, to earn income in another capacity and ruled that the disability pension benefits were thus not duplicative of the award for lost future earnings. Id. at 88-89. In Bryant v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 592 (1999), this Court held that Social Security survivor benefits received by a child were a collateral source to be set off against the recovery in an action for the wrongful death of her mother. This Court noted that if the child were to have the benefit of her mother’s earnings, she would not be entitled to Social Security survivor benefits and similarly that the jury’s award for future earnings was predicated on the child’s inability to reap the benefits of her mother’s financial support. This Court stated, “Thus, permitting recovery of the full lost earnings award and Social Security survivor benefits would doubly compensate [the child] - 11 - and undermine the legislative goal of eliminating duplicative recoveries.” Id. at 608. Other than in the present case, the Appellate Divisions have addressed C.P.L.R. 4545 in the context of personal injury awards to New York City employees three times. First, in Iazzetti v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 140 (1st Dept., 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 94 N.Y.2d 183 (1999), the Appellate Division affirmed the factual finding of the Supreme Court that the jury’s awards to the plaintiff, a New York City sanitation worker, for loss of earnings and loss of pension benefits “correspond to and are replaced by plaintiff’s accident disability retirement pension.” Id. at 140. (City sanitation workers receive an accident disability retirement pension similar to that received by police officers such as plaintiff herein. N.Y.C. Admin. Code 13-175.) The Court observed that the accident disability retirement pension would “continue for the 21 years that [the] plaintiff would have earned salary on the job but for the accident and for the expected ten years that he would have received an ordinary pension upon retirement.” Id. This Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision in part on other grounds but did not disturb the finding that the loss of earnings and pension benefits corresponded to the accident disability retirement benefits. 94 N.Y.2d 183. - 12 - Next, the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed the statute in a case involving a New York City firefighter, Terranova v. New York City Transit Authority, 49 A.D.3d 10 (2d Dept., 2007), leave to appeal denied, 11 N.Y.3d 708 (2008). The decision states that the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages, primarily for future lost earnings; the firefighter had sought no award for loss of pension benefits. Id. at 12. The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court erred in failing to find that the plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits were a collateral source to be set off against his lost earnings. The Court found that the plaintiff had ten years of service when he was retired on accident disability and would not have been able to retire until he reached 20 years of service if he had not been injured. The Court concluded that because the accident disability retirement benefits began immediately upon his retirement, and his wages ended at the same time, the accident disability benefits corresponded directly with the award for lost earnings. Id. at 19. Most recently, in Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority, 88 A.D.3d 321 (1st Dept., 2011), the Appellate Division, First Department found that the defendant had not met its burden of showing that the accident disability retirement benefits received by a New York City police officer corresponded to the award for lost earnings. (There was no award for loss of pension benefits. Id. at 324.) The - 13 - Court found that the record contained insufficient evidence that the accident disability pension was meant to replace the plaintiff’s lost earnings and that the defendant had failed even to identify the statutes or Administrative Code provisions applicable to the case. The case thus is sui generis. (B) We will proceed chronologically and first address the question of whether the accident disability pension benefits received by plaintiff are a collateral source under the statute for her lost earnings. After plaintiff’s last day of work on August 30, 2009, her salary stopped. At the same instant, she began to receive her accident disability retirement benefits. The amount of the principal component of her accident disability retirement benefits was and continues to be determined by her final salary. N.Y.C. Admin. Code 13-258. Perhaps most importantly, until she reaches the “minimum age or period for service retirement elected by ... her,” plaintiff may be called by the Pension Board to be examined by the Medical Board. N.Y.C. Admin. Code 13-254(a). If the Medical Board and Pension Board agree that she is able to engage in gainful - 14 - employment, her name will be placed on the appropriate civil service list as a preferred eligible. Id. If plaintiff were to be summoned for a medical examination and refuse to appear, her accident disability retirement could be revoked. Id. 13- 254(b). In addition, again until she reaches the “minimum age or period for service retirement elected by ... her,” plaintiff will be required annually to complete a financial disclosure questionnaire indicating all of her earnings (60). This is because until then her accident disability pension benefits are subject to reduction if she is gainfully employed (or if she is appointed to a position from the civil service list after examination by the Medical Board). Id. 13-254(a). Once plaintiff reaches the “minimum age or period for service retirement elected by ... her,” these requirements and limitations will end. Both before and after reaching her minimum age for service retirement, her accident disability retirement benefits would be suspended only if she were to take a position with New York State or any of its political subdivisions. N.Y.C. Charter 1117. But while she was working as a police officer she was forbidden from holding any such position with one exception not relevant here. Id. 1115. - 15 - As relevant here, at the time of plaintiff’s accident C.P.L.R. 4545 provided in relevant part (emphasis added): [W]here the plaintiff seeks to recover for the cost of medical care, dental care, custodial care or rehabilitation services, loss of earnings or other economic loss, evidence shall be admissible for consideration by the court to establish that any such past or future cost or expense was or will, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified, in whole or in part, from any collateral source.... If the court finds that any such cost or expense was or will, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified from any collateral source, it shall reduce the amount of the award by such finding …. As to whether plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits replace her salary, we note that, although Appellate Division rulings are of course not binding on this Court, in Iazzetti and Terranova the Appellate Divisions found that the accident disability retirement benefits of a New York City sanitation worker and firefighter, respectively, replaced their lost earnings. The Appellate Division herein reached the opposite result in the present case but did not disclose its reasoning or mention its previous ruling in Iazzetti. We submit that it is plain that plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits replaced her salary under C.P.L.R. 4545. They started the instant her salary stopped and will continue through the date on which she would have retired - 16 - from the police force if the accident had not happened. See Terranova, 49 A.D.3d at 19 (provisions for retirement benefits were same). The amount of those benefits is based in large part on the amount of her final salary and thus both her salary and her accident disability retirement benefits are based upon her length of service. In addition, in Oden this Court found that the disability pension benefits there should not be set off against the plaintiff’s lost earnings because the plaintiff was free to work in another occupation without loss of his disability pension benefits. 87 N.Y.2d at 88-89. The present case is the converse: in the period until a police officer’s normal retirement date, his or her accident disability retirement benefits would be reduced, potentially to zero, if the officer is able to engage in gainful employment. N.Y.C. Admin. Code 13-254. When a police officer is found by the Medical Board to be disabled, this means the police officer is disabled from police work, which is of course physically demanding. Police officers retired on disability may well still be employable; for example, if an accident in the line of duty were to leave a police officer in a wheelchair, that police officer could well be perfectly capable of office work. In that case, the accident disability retirement benefits will be reduced because they are intended to replace salary, until the officer’s normal retirement date, and there is no need to replace salary if the officer is earning a salary in another occupation. - 17 - Thus, we respectfully submit that the Appellate Division erred herein in concluding that plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits are not a collateral source under C.P.L.R. 4545 to be set off against her loss of earnings. Turning to the question of whether plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits replace her loss of service pension benefits, in the Supreme Court plaintiff admitted that the accident disability pension benefits correspond to lost service pension benefits. Plaintiff stated, in attempting to argue that there should be no set-off against lost earnings, “[T]he evidence shows that the [accident disability retirement benefits] at issue herein [are] in lieu of ordinary pension benefits to which plaintiff would have otherwise been entitled” (1013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, plaintiff should not be heard to argue that the Appellate Division erred in finding that plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits should be set off against her recovery for loss of service pension benefits. In addition, the Appellate Division found similar accident disability retirement benefits to be a collateral source to be set off against loss of regular pension benefits in Iazzetti and of course the Appellate Division herein found that - 18 - plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits should be set off against her loss of service pension benefits. There can be no doubt that the Appellate Division rulings in Iazzetti and herein were correct. Plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits continued past the date on which she would have retired for service and those benefits will continue until her demise. This is the exact same term as the service retirement benefits she lost. And this right to receive accident disability retirement benefits from the date she would have retired until her demise arose the instant that she separated from the Police Department and lost her right to service retirement benefits. The amount of her accident disability retirement benefits is based on her final salary, as would have been her service retirement benefits. Moreover, after her date for retirement for service, she will no longer be required to file annual financial disclosure forms and the board will no longer have the power to summon her for a physical examination. Her accident disability retirement benefits will no longer subject to diminution if she has other earnings. This is because after her normal retirement date the accident disability retirement benefits replace service retirement benefits and service retirement benefits, because - 19 - they are a pension and not a replacement for salary, are not reduced because of other earnings. Thus, we respectfully submit that the Appellate Division was correct in concluding that plaintiff’s accident disability retirement benefits are a collateral source under C.P.L.R. 4545 to be set off against her loss of service pension benefits. CONCLUSION The amended judgment should be vacated and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court for appropriate proceedings leading to the entry of a second amended judgment in which the accident disability pension benefits received by - 20 - plaintiff will be set off against her lost income as well as her lost pension benefits and Transit should be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Dated: Brooklyn, New York July 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted, LAWRENCE HEISLER Attorney for Defendants-Appellants- Respondents by: /s/ Timothy J. O’Shaughnessy, Esq. TIMOTHY J. O’SHAUGHNESSY Of Counsel: Timothy J. O’Shaughnessy PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT Pursuant to 22 NYCRR Section 600.10(v) the foregoing brief was prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word. TYPE: A proportionally spaced typeface was used as follows: Name of Typeface: Times New Roman Point Size: 14 Line Spacing: Double WORD COUNT: The total number of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof of service and certificate of compliance, or any authorized addendum containing statutes, rules, regulations, etc. is 3,551. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX — X NIURKA ANDINO, Index No.: 26798/2004 Plaintiff, PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT -against- RONALD MILLS and THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants. -X RONALD MILLS and THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, . Third-Party Plaintiffs, -against- NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT and RAFAEL VILLEGAS, Third-Party Defendants. ..... x The Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and RONALD MILLS state as and for their Pre-Argument Statement the following: 1. Title of the action: See above. 2. Full name of the original parties and any change in the parties: See above; no changes. 3. Name and address and telephone number of counsel for appellant: LAWRENCE HEISLER Acting Executive Assistant General Counsel Attorneys for Defendants THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and RONALD MILLS 130 Livingston Street TORTS DIVISION -Room 1150 Brooklyn, New York 11201 T: (718)694-3853 F: (718)694-5726 4. Name and address and telephone number of counsel for respondent(s): DANSKER & ASPROMONTE ASSOCIATES Attorneys for Plaintiff NIURKA ANDINO 30 Vesey Street, 16th Floor New York, New York 10007 T: (212)732-2929 F: (212) 732-8795 pdansker@dandalaw.com JONATHAN D. SHRAMKO, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff NIURKA ANDINO 26 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, New York 10004 T: (212) 809-1100 CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 T: (212)356-2289 5. Court and County from which Supreme Court, Bronx County appeal is taken: 6. State whether appeal is from Judgment entered June 10, 2014 an order or a final judgment and the date of entry thereof: 7. State whether there is any additional appeal pending in the same action: By Notice of Appeal dated July 19, 2013, Ronald Mills and The New York City Transit Authority appealed a Judgment entered in this matter in the Bronx County Clerk’s Office on June 6, 2013, which adjudged that Third-Party Defendant New York City Police Department has Judgment against Third-Party Plaintiff The New York City Transit Authority. This additional appeal has not been perfected and the deadline to perfect is August 4, 2014. 8. State whether there is any related action or proceeding in any court of any other jurisdiction: None. 9. State the nature and object of Personal injury the cause of action or special proceeding: 10. State as briefly as possible the result reached in the court or administrative body below: Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor 11. State as briefly as possible the grounds for reversal or modification: Failure to make out a prima facie case; absence of triable issue of material fact; against weight of the evidence; erroneous rulings; excessiveness; abuse of discretion. By: ANNA J. ERVOLINA Executive Agency Counsel