Vega-Santana v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.

Decision Date29 July 2013
Docket NumberNo. 11 Civ. 2071(GWG).,11 Civ. 2071(GWG).
PartiesAna Lydia VEGA–SANTANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Edward W. Hill–Tollinche, Hill & Gonzalez, PSC, Isabel Abislaiman, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.

Ronald E. Joseph, Jennifer Ashley Ramme, Jennifer Wu, William Patrick Miller, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford PC, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Ana Lydia Vega–Santana (Vega) and Robert Villanua bring this suit for negligence against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and several unidentified entities for injuries Vega sustained in New York's Pennsylvania Station following a trip on an Amtrak train. Defendants now move for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, this motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.

Vega is a writer who lives in Puerto Rico with her husband, Villanua. See Deposition of Ana Lydia Vega, dated Aug. 16, 2012 (annexed as Ex. 1 to Declaration of Jennifer A. Ramme, filed Jan. 25, 2013 (Docket # 42) (“Ramme Decl.”)) (“Vega Dep. Tr.”), 5; Deposition of Roberto Villanua, dated Aug. 17, 2012 (annexed as Ex. 2 to Ramme Decl.) (“Villanua Dep. Tr.”), 4, 8. Vega was invited to give the W.E.B. Du Bois lecture at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, and traveled there in October 2008. (Vega Dep. Tr. 13; Villanua Dep. Tr. 6–7). Following the lecture, on October 15, 2008, Vega and Villanua traveled from Hamilton to Utica, New York, and then took an Amtrak train from Utica to New York City. (Vega Dep. Tr. 44–45; Villanua Dep. Tr. 7). Plaintiffs' train arrived at Pennsylvania Station in New York City at approximately 3:30 pm. (Vega Dep. Tr. 53–55; Villanua Dep. Tr. 7–8). Vega was carrying one shoulder bag, approximately 1.5 feet by 1.5 feet, and wheeling a medium-sized rolling suitcase. (Vega Dep. Tr. 48–53; Villanua Dep. Tr. 10–11). After exiting the train, the couple looked for signs for an elevator or street exit. (Vega Dep. Tr. 56; Villanua Dep. Tr. 14–15). Because they did not see any signs for either, Vega approached a man on the side of the platform. (Vega Dep. Tr. 56; Villanua Dep. Tr. 15–16). She asked if he worked there, and when he answered in the affirmative, she asked how to exit to the street. (Vega Dep. Tr. 56–57; Villanua Dep. Tr. 19). He responded that the best option was to take the escalator. (Vega Dep. Tr. 8, 57; Villanua Dep. Tr. 19). He then told Vega and Villanua to follow him, and proceeded to move “so fast that [Vega] almost lost sight of him and [she] accelerated [her] step.” (Vega Dep. Tr. 8; Villanua Dep. Tr. 20, 23). When Vega got to the escalator, she noticed that it was “narrow.” (Vega Dep. Tr. 64; Villanua Dep. Tr. 28). She saw the individual whom she had followed at the top of the escalator, so she got on the escalator. (Vega Dep. Tr. 65). As she stepped on, she “immediately [ ] tried to place the suitcase ... next to [her], but [she] noticed that there wasn't sufficient space, so ... [she] placed it on the step behind [her].” ( Id.). When she was approximately “halfway” up the escalator, she “fell backwards ... [a]nd upon falling backwards, [her] body turned” and she injured her wrist. (Vega Dep. Tr. 69–71, 72–73; Villanua Dep. Tr. 39–41). In response to a question about what caused her fall, Vega stated,

I truly cannot explain it myself. I imagine that I lost my balance. But at the moment that something like that happens, emotions take over and the rational[ ] part is not working clearly, therefore I cannot give you a precise reason.... Something took me off balance, but I cannot categorically affirm what it was.

(Vega Dep. Tr. 69–70).

When asked if the escalator was working properly at the time that she fell, she responded, “I cannot swear by it because I don't know if there was a problem, but my impression was that yes, that it was working.” (Vega Dep. Tr. 70). Villanua testified that he believed the escalator was in working order. (Villanua Dep. Tr. 30).

After Vega's fall, the escalator stopped, and her husband helped her up. (Vega Dep. Tr. 84–86; Villanua Dep. Tr. 44, 46–50). She was then assisted by police and paramedics in the station and taken to the hospital. (Vega Dep. Tr. 93–94, 99–101; Villanua Dep. Tr. 67–70, 78–81). After an examination at St. Vincent's Hospital (Vega Dep. Tr. 101–03; Villanua Dep. Tr. 81–82), doctors diagnosed her with a fracture of the distal radius bone (Vega Dep. Tr. 102). She spent the remainder of her time in New York City in a hotel room with her arm immobilized, and was forced to cancel several meetings and interviews. (Vega Dep. Tr. 106–10; Villanua Dep. Tr. 84–85). Upon her return to Puerto Rico, Vega consulted an orthopedic specialist, who treated her, replaced her cast, and recommended physical therapy. (Vega Dep. Tr. 112–23). She underwent several months of physical therapy (Vega Dep. Tr. 123–26), but stopped when she was told that further therapy would not be effective (Vega Dep. Tr. 126). She struggled with basic activities such as pulling up zippers, buckling seat belts, cooking, and cleaning for several years following the accident. (Vega Dep. Tr. 126–28; Villanua Dep. Tr. 90–92). Because of this injury, Vega's ability to write was “quite impaired,” her “writing rhythm and ... literary production, productivity, has been affected,” and her career has been negatively impacted. (Vega Dep. Tr. 9–10, 22–24, 29–43, 137–39; Villanua Dep. Tr. 98–102). Doctors told her that consequences of the fracture could include degenerative arthritis and carpel tunnel syndrome, but she has not yet experienced those conditions. (Vega Dep. Tr. 121, 132–33).

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in Puerto Rico, where they reside. See Complaint, filed October 14, 2010 (Docket # 1). The parties then agreed to have the action transferred to the Southern District of New York. See Stipulation and Order to Transfer Venue, dated Feb. 24, 2011 (annexed to Informative Motion Regarding Transfer of Venue Stipulation, filed Mar. 3, 2011 (Docket # 7)). Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint on July 29, 2011, Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, filed July 29, 2011 (Docket # 24); Amended Complaint, dated July 29, 2011 (annexed to Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint), and on August 29, 2011, this Court granted this request without opposition, Memorandum Endorsement, filed Aug. 29, 2011 (Docket # 25). On January 25, 2013, following discovery, defendants filed the instant motion.1

II. LAW GOVERNING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, [t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed” and the court must draw “all justifiable inferences” in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)). Nevertheless, once the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “the nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (emphasis in original) (additional citation omitted) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)), and “may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation,” Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir.1998) (citations omitted). In other words, the nonmovant must offer “concrete evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Where “the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is warranted if the nonmovant fails to ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [its] case.’ Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584, 590, 113 S.Ct. 1689, 123 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993) (alteration in original) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548). Thus, [a] defendant moving for summary judgment must prevail if the plaintiff fails to come forward with enough evidence to create a genuine factual issue to be tried with respect to an element essential to its case.” Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253, 258 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek summary judgment in their favor on three grounds: (1) Vega has failed to establish the cause of her accident and therefore her negligence claim fails as a matter of law, Def. Mem. at 7–11; Def. Reply at 2–8; (2) Villanua's loss of consortium claim fails because it is derivative of the negligence claim, Def. Mem. at 11–12; Def. Reply at 9–10, and (3) the suit cannot proceed against any unnamed defendants, Def. Mem. at 12; Def. Reply at 10. We discuss each argument next.

A. Vega's Negligence Claim

Vega's amended complaint asserts that the “negligent or wrongful acts or omissions” of defendants caused Vega's injuries. Amended Complaint ¶ 1. To state a claim for negligence under New York law, a plaintiff's allegations must establish (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a cognizable duty of care, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Condoleo v. Guangzhou Jindo Container Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 21, 2019
    ...Plaintiff Anna Condeleo's derivative cause of action for loss of consortium be dismissed as well. See Vega-Santana v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. , 956 F. Supp. 2d 556, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (dismissing derivative claim for loss of consortium because "[w]here the primary cause of action is dis......
  • Corwin v. NYC Bike Share, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 1, 2017
    ...judgment to defendants on certain of Corwin's claims, Blumenthal's claims are dismissed as well. Vega–Santana v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. , 956 F.Supp.2d 556, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Where the primary cause of action is dismissed on summary judgment, the loss of consortium claim must be dis......
  • Dung Nguyen v. Morrison Healthcare
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 29, 2018
    ...Plaintiff Vu's derivative cause of action for loss of consortium must be dismissed as well. See Vega-Santana v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. , 956 F. Supp. 2d 556, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (dismissing derivative claim for loss of consortium because "[w]here the primary cause of action is dismissed......
  • Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • May 30, 2014
    ...and Plaintiffs have not identified any other party, each unnamed party is dismissed from this action. Vega–Santana v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 956 F.Supp.2d 556, 563 (S.D.N.Y.2013) ; see also Kemper Ins. Companies, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 115 F.Supp.2d 116, 125 (D.Mass.2000) (“Fictitiou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT