Supreme Court, Richmond County

Decided on April 15, 2026

Index No. 152233/2024

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.

[*1]

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a], the Court has considered the following papers in review of the inquest of the Plaintiff, Careem Taylor, as against Defendant, Bryant Bullock.

1. Summons and Complaint (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1);

2. Notice of Motion, dated December 26, 2024, for Default Judgment as against Defendant Bryant Bullock (Motion Sequence No. 002); Affirmation of Michael A. Simon, Esq., in Support with Exhibits (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 24-30);

3. Order, dated June 26, 2025, with annexed transcript, GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 002 request fir a Default Judgment against Defendant Bryant Bullock (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 96);

4. Exhibit Sheet for Default Inquest - (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 98);

5. Plaintiff's Exhibit #1 — Careem Taylor Medical Records (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 99);

6. Plaintiff's Memorandum Concerning conscious pain and Suffering etc. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 101);

7. Plaintiff's Inquest Memorandum (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 102);

8. Transcript of the Inquest Proceedings on April 24, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 103).

II. Procedural History

The present action was commenced with the filing of a Summons and Verified Complaint on or about October 24, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1). This negligence action aroses from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 14, 2024, at approximately 6:30 P.M., at or near the intersection of Richmond Terrace and Nicholas Avenue, Staten Island, New York. Plaintiff Careem Taylor was operating a 2018 Honda sedan when he was allegedly struck by a 2023 Ford Transit truck, bearing New York license plate 97030ND, operated by Defendant Bryant Bullock.

The truck was rented to Bullock by Defendant The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ("Home Depot") on September 1, 2024, and the rental was extended by telephone on the morning of the accident. The return date was September 28, 2024. The vehicle was owned and registered to Home Depot.

Pursuant to his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action against all Defendants for non-economic loss, including pain, suffering, disfigurement and disability as a result of his serious injury caused by the accident. (see id).

On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Affirmation of Service, dated October 31, 2024, pertaining to service of the Summons and Verified Complaint via the Secretary of State on Defendant The Home Depot, Inc. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 3). On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Affirmation of Service, dated November 5, 2024, pertaining to service of the Summons and Verified Complaint via the authorized representative for the agent on behalf of [*2]Defendant The Home Depot, Inc. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5). On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Affirmation of Service, dated November 25, 2024, pertaining to service of the Summons and Verified Complaint via affixing the same to the door of Defendant Bryant Bullock and via United States mail to Defendant Bryant Bullock. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 6).

Defendant The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. filed an Answer with Cross-Claim on December 6, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 20). Defendant The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. established it was entitled to summary judgment under CPLR § 3212 and the Graves Amendment and the Complaint against The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., was dismissed in its entirety in the Decision and Order, dated May 15, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 91).

Defendant Bryant Bullock failed to answer. On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed Motion Sequence No. 002 by Notice of Motion seeking a Default Judgment to be entered against Defendant Bryant Bullock. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 24-30). On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 002 was granted as to Defendant Bryant Bullock. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 96).

On October 22, 2025, an inquest was completed. On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff uploaded a copy of the transcript. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 103). On January 8, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a Post Inquest Summation Affirmation. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 101-102).

III. Findings of Fact

The inquest was held in-person on October 22, 2025 with court reporter Stephanie Doran. Plaintiff's counsel, Kathryn Maxwell, Esq., and Plaintiff Careem Taylor appeared. Defendant The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. established it was entitled to summary judgment under CPLR § 3212 and the Graves Amendment and the Complaint against The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., was dismissed in its entirety in the Decision and Order, dated May 15, 2025. Defendant Bryant Bullock defaulted in appearance in the action.

Plaintiff testified that when the September 14, 2024 accident occurred, he was working in trucking. (tr at Page 15, lines 6-8 [October 22, 2025]). Plaintiff testified that he was returning from a trip to a restaurant and was on Nicholas and Richmond Terrace. (see id at Page 5 lines 7-25). Plaintiff testified that as he approached the intersection the light was red and then turned green. (see id at page 7 lines 6-12). When the light changed to green in Plaintiff's direction, he was traveling at approximately 10-15 miles per hour and began making a left turn. (see id at page 7, lines 13-19).

Plaintiff testified that he became aware of the accident when "my car was on the opposite side of the street on the sidewalk and I came to my senses I was like, oh. And then I seen the truck kind of like hit the gate." (see id at page 7 lines 20-24). Plaintiff further testified that the other vehicle hit him on the front right-hand/passenger side of his vehicle and pushed him over to the left onto the sidewalk. (see id at page 8 lines 2-10).

Plaintiff described it feeling like a he did "a big shake" and he hit the doors of the car. (see id at lines 16-22). Plaintiff further testified, "My left shoulder hit the door, but I was driving like with my right hand. So right shoulder [hit the interior of the car], I don't know, it was like kind of like a rattle. I was a little dazed, honestly. Dazed when I came to my senses and got out of the car. I was in shock." (see id at page 8 line 25 to page 9 line 7).

Plaintiff testified that the other vehicle involved was "a Home Depot truck. Not like a 26-footer, but maybe like a little longer than that." (see id at 9 lines 22-24). Plaintiff was unable to [*3]estimate the speed of the other vehicle but contended that the impact was hard and the other vehicle "was definitely -- he was speeding through the red light." (see id at page 9 line 25 to page 10 line 6).

When questioned whether he spoke to the driver of the other vehicle, Plaintiff testified, "Not really, he was impaired. He was drunk. So I am telling him to stop moving. He is trying to backup, almost hit the car again. I am trying to tell him to stop moving." (see id at page 10 lines 13-17).

Plaintiff testified that after the accident he was taken by ambulance to the hospital and a police report was taken. (see id at page 9 lines 8-21). Plaintiff was questioned regarding his treatment immediately following the accident.

Q. So after the accident you were taken to the hospital. Were you admitted at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. What type of treatment did you get as soon as you entered the emergency services?

A. I think they just gave me pain pills.

Q. Did you get any type of diagnostic exams; any x-ray, CTs?

A. I think I got that, yeah, an x-ray.

Q. An x-ray. And did the doctor tell you what these x-rays said?

A. No. It was getting late and I kind of left. (see id at page 11 lines 13-24).

Plaintiff contended that approximately a month after the accident, he sought further treatment. (see id at page 11 line 25 to page 12 line 6). Plaintiff was unable to remember the name of the doctor but testified that he went to see a private physician, "who took more x-rays, more CAT scans and everything, showing [him his] injuries." (see id at page 12 lines 7-16). Plaintiff further contended that this diagnosis resulted in him having surgery in May 2025 to correct a tear in his shoulder. (see id at lines 17-25).

At this point Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, Plaintiff's certified medical records, was moved into evidence. (see id at page 13 lines 5-17). Testimony was elicited from the Plaintiff that his shoulder surgery on May 25, 2025 was a right shoulder arthroscopy. (see id at pages 13-14). Plaintiff testified that the surgery was successful but following the surgery he had to have physical therapy three to four days per week for a "couple of months". (see id at page 14 lines 11-25).

Plaintiff testified that he had still not returned to work, but that his recovery "has been going well". (see id at page 15 lines 6-19). Plaintiff was further questioned as follows:

Q. How would you say that your shoulder has felt after the surgery?

A. It is a little -- it is not as good as it was. Knowing that I am an active person, so besides the gym I tried to shoot a basketball one day and I couldn't do it. I don't think I tried again. But that was like about two months ago.

Q. Have you been back to the doctors since?

A. No, I haven't got a checkup.

THE COURT: Sir, why haven't you been back to work?

THE WITNESS: I haven't been back to work because I was kind of letting my shoulder heal properly.

THE COURT: You are still able to go to the gym?

THE WITNESS: Not really.

THE COURT: Play basketball?

THE WITNESS: No, I haven't played.

Q. And then you said it is not as good as before. Would you say your shoulder -- how would you have said your shoulder was before the accident?

A. Perfectly, fine. Never had surgeries, ever.

Q. Today, what is your pain level?

A. There is no pain at the moment, but if somebody actually hits it or if I am doing something, there's pain. If I'm sleeping the wrong way... (see id at page 15 line 20 to page 16 line 20).

Q. And so in your day-to-day life, going back a little bit, how would you say that this injury has affected you?

A. It definitely affected me in my day-to-day life. Besides not being able to carry heavy things or hold my daughter with my right arm, my sleeping patterns is off, the shoulder gets numb at times, there is a tingling sensation.

Q. What would you say you were completely able to do before the surgery that you can no longer do at all since this accident?

A. I was able to do everything before the surgery. Work out, lift weights.

THE COURT: How old are you, sir?

THE WITNESS: I just turned 33.

THE COURT: Thank you.

A. I was able to do everything before the surgery.

Q. What do you find that you can no longer do at all since this accident?

A. At all, I would not say at all. I would do things to a minimum now.

Q. What do you have difficulty doing now that you used to be able to do 100 percent?

A. Lifting heavy objects, sleeping on my right side. That's about it. (see id at page 16 line 24 to page 17 line 21).

Plaintiff testified that as a result of the accident he has lost wages. (see id at page 18, lines 11-12). Plaintiff contended that he was an hourly employee and earned approximately $60,000 annually. (see id at lines 13-24). No W-2s or tax returns were submitted to the Court. Plaintiff was unable to recall how long he had been employed at the time of the accident or the name of the company he was employed by. (see id at page 21 lines 6-12).

Plaintiff made an application to supplement the record with certified tax returns from the year prior to the accident, which was granted, however, Plaintiff failed to provide such a to the Court. (see id at page 21 line 24 to page 22 line 8).

Plaintiff provided medical documentation that he underwent a right shoulder arthroscopy on May 28, 2025 at Gramercy Surgery Center. (see plaintiff's exhibit 1); (plaintiff medical records). Plaintiff's preoperative diagnosis by his attending physician Matthew A. Wert, MD was an "internal derangement of the right shoulder." (see id). Plaintiff's postoperative diagnosis was documented as follows:

Tear of anterior labrum (543.431A)

Tear of superior labrum (S43.431A)

Subacromial bursitis (M75.81)

Rotator cuff tear - partial (M175.111)

Hypertrophic synovitis (M67.211)

Impingement syndrome (M25.41)

Loose body (M24.011)

Chondromalacia shoulder (M94.211)

Adhesions (M75.01)

AC Joint Hypertrophy (M89.311) (see id).

Plaintiff contends that his personal injury is the result of the motor vehicle accident on September 14, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 102 at ¶2). Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the accident, he suffered a right shoulder rotator cuff/labral tear requiring arthroscopic surgery, resulting in continuing pain, limited strength and range of motion, and likely need for future care. (see id at ¶7). Plaintiff underwent a right shoulder surgery on May 28, 2025. (see id). Plaintiff further alleges that he also has cervical and lumbar disc bulges/herniations, which depending on imaging, symptoms, and medical testimony may require long-term monitoring or future interventions, and cause chronic pain, limitations in daily activities, inability to perform certain tasks, and diminished quality of life. (see id at ¶8).

IV. Conclusions of Law

Pursuant to an Order dated June 26, 2025, granting Plaintiff a default judgment on liability as against Defendant Bryant Bullock, the Court held an inquest and an assessment of damages on October 22, 2025. Based on the evidence found to be credible, the Court renders the following decision.

Plaintiff maintains that collision occurred by reason of the negligence of the Defendant Bryant Bullock in operation of the motor vehicle. Plaintiff credibly testified that on September 14, 2024, he was traveling within his lane of traffic when he reached the intersection of Nicholas Avenue and Richmond Terrace. Plaintiff was traveling at approximately 10-15 miles per hour, had a green traffic signal in his direction and was proceeding to make a left turn. In the process of making his turn, the vehicle operated by Defendant Bryant Bullock proceeded through the red traffic signal and impacted Plaintiff's vehicle.

Plaintiff contended that the impact caused him to be shaken and his left shoulder hit the door. He also claimed that his right shoulder also hit the interior or the vehicle but was unable to specify what part of the interior of the vehicle he hit.

Plaintiff testified that a police report was made. A copy of the certified report was not provided and was not entered into evidence. Plaintiff alleged that the driver of the other vehicle, Defendant Bryant Bullock, was "impaired" and "drunk", however, there was no testimony or evidence that Defendant Bryant Bullock was arrested by the police who were at the scene and spoke to both Plaintiff and Defendant Bryant Bullock.

Insurance Law § 5104 provides that there shall be no right of recovery for personal injuries arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle within the state, except in the case of serious injury or for basic economic loss. Serious injury is defined by condition-specific categories in Insurance Law § 5102 [d], and includes, inter alia, a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment (see Damas v Valdes, 84 AD3d 87 [2d Dept 2011] citing Toure v Avis Rent a Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]).

Plaintiff contends that as a result of the accident that occurred on September 14, 2024, Plaintiff required the following procedures:

Plaintiff testified that following the accident, he was transported by ambulance to an unidentified hospital. No records of his transportation by ambulance or treatment at the scene by [*4]EMS were provided or submitted into evidence.

Plaintiff testified that he was transported and admitted to an unidentified hospital, where he was given pain pills and an x-ray. Plaintiff did not specify what part of his anatomy was x-rayed. When Plaintiff was questioned if doctor told him what the x-rays said, Plaintiff testified that "No. It was getting late and I kind of left." (tr at Page 11, lines 22-24 [October 22, 2025]). No medical records from Plaintiff's treatment at the unknown hospital were provided or submitted into evidence.

Plaintiff alleges that about a month after his accident, he sought additional treatment. Plaintiff fails to recall the name of the doctor that he sought treatment from. Plaintiff testified that this unknown medical provider took "more x-rays, more CAT scans and everything" showing Plaintiff his injuries. (see id at page 12 lines 13-16). This unidentified medical provider determined that Plaintiff had a tear in his shoulder that required surgery. (see id at lines 17-20). No medical records, x-rays, or CAT scans from Plaintiff's diagnosis by the unidentified medical provider were provided or submitted into evidence.

On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff underwent a right shoulder arthroscopy at Gramercy Surgery Center. (see plaintiff's exhibit 1); (plaintiff medical records). Plaintiff's preoperative diagnosis by his attending physician Matthew A. Wert, MD was an "internal derangement of the right shoulder." (see id). Plaintiff's postoperative diagnosis was documented as follows:

Tear of anterior labrum (543.431A)

Tear of superior labrum (S43.431A)

Subacromial bursitis (M75.81)

Rotator cuff tear - partial (M175.111)

Hypertrophic synovitis (M67.211)

Impingement syndrome (M25.41)

Loose body (M24.011)

Chondromalacia shoulder (M94.211)

Adhesions (M75.01)

AC Joint Hypertrophy (M89.311) (see id).

The medical records provide by Gramercy Surgery Center include the Right Shoulder Operative Report by Matthew Wert, MD. Under procedures, the report provides that an

Examination of the glenohumeral joint revealed:

Tear of the anterior labrum.

Tear of the superior labrum.

Synovitis.

Loose body.

Chondromalacia Supraspinatus

Rotator cuff tear- partial (see id).

No further diagnostic tests/films, x-rays, or CAT scans from Plaintiff's diagnosis/treatment by Gramercy Surgery Center or Matthew Wert, MD were provided or submitted into evidence.

Plaintiff testified that following the surgery, he had to attend physical therapy for a couple of months for three to four days per week. (tr at Page 14, lines 15-25 [October 22, 2025]). Plaintiff did not identify where his physical therapy took place. No assessments, reports or progress notes pertaining to Plaintiff's physical therapy were provided or submitted into evidence. Plaintiff did testify that his unidentified physical therapy provider explained his [*5]recovery as "it has been going well." (see id at page 15 lines 17-19).

Plaintiff testified that his shoulder "is not as good as it was." (see id at page 15 lines 20-22). Plaintiff further testified that he goes to the gym but was unable to shoot basketballs. (see id at page 15 lines 23-24). Plaintiff testified that he has neither returned to the doctor for a checkup nor has he returned to work because he was letting his shoulder heal properly. (see id at page 16 lines 2-7). When questioned further about going to the gym, Plaintiff clarified that he has not really been able to go to the gym. (see id at page 16 lines 8-10).

Plaintiff further testified that as he testified, he had no pain, but "if somebody actually hits it or if I am doing something, there's pain. If I'm sleeping the wrong way..." (see id at page 16 lines 17-20). Plaintiff continued, "[The injury] definitely affected me in my day-to-day life. Besides not being able to carry heavy things or hold my daughter with my right arm, my sleeping patterns is off, the shoulder gets numb at times, there is a tingling sensation." (see id at page 17 lines 1-4).

Plaintiff testified that he had no out-of-pocket medical expenses. Plaintiff testified he has not worked since the accident, and his annual income was approximately $60,000. (see id at page 18). Plaintiff did not prove any W-2s or tax records even though Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to supplement the record with certified tax returns from the year prior to the accident.

Plaintiff testified that he had no further out-of-pocket expenses relating to the accident in either medical or car repair expenses.

The totality of the testimony and admissible evidence submitted by the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the permanent consequential and/or the significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d] as a result of the subject accident, which required the Plaintiff to undergo a right shoulder arthroscopy. As of the date of inquest, Plaintiff had not returned to work and had no immediately foreseeable plans to return to work due to his physical limitations caused by the injury.

Once a prima facie case of serious injury has been established and the trier of fact determines that a serious injury has been sustained, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for all injuries incurred as a result of an accident (see Usoiani v Dumbo Moving & Stor., Inc., 241 AD3d 981 [2d Dept 2025] citing Rizzo v DeSimone, 6 AD3d 600 [2d Dept 2004]; Prieston v Massaro, 107 AD2d 742 [2d Dept 1985]).

The Court has considered all the factors such as the nature and extent of the injuries, the degree of past, present, and future pain, and the permanency of the Plaintiff's injury. (see id citing Mujica v Nassau County Corr. Facility, 231 AD3d 1046 [2d Dept 2024]; Ciuffo v Mowery Constr., Inc., 107 AD3d 1195 [3d Dept 2013]).

A. Past Pain and Suffering

Plaintiff, a 33-year-old employee in the trucking industry, suffered an injury to his right shoulder requiring arthroscopy surgery. Plaintiff's postoperative diagnosis was documented a tear of anterior labrum, a tear of superior labrum, subacromial bursitis, a rotator cuff tear — partial, hypertrophic synovitis, and Chondromalacia of the shoulder. Plaintiff testified that due to the physically demanding nature of his employment he has not worked since the date of the accident. Accordingly, based on the nature of the injuries, including the shoulder arthroscopy and the course of physical therapy, an award of $150,000.00 [ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] for past pain and suffering is appropriate and supported by the record.

B. Future Pain and Suffering

Plaintiff testified that the surgery was successful but that he had still not returned to work even though his recovery "has been going well". Plaintiff further testified that his shoulder was not as good as it was and although there was no pain "at the moment", contact with the shoulder or activity results in pain. Plaintiff maintained that the injury had affected him in his day-to-day life limiting his ability to carry heavy things and affecting his sleeping patterns.

No evidence in either documentation or medical testimony was offered to establish any permanency or future limitations as a result of Plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and, accordingly, an award for future pain and suffering is not supported by the record and no award is made for future pain and suffering.

C. Medical Expenses

Plaintiff testified that he had no out-of-pocket medical expenses, and no evidence was presented as to the cost of the surgery or treatment. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and, accordingly, no award is made for medical expenses.

D. Lost Wages / Loss of Earnings

Although Plaintiff testified that he has not worked since the accident, he failed to submit any documentary proof (such as W-2s, tax returns, or other records), despite being given an opportunity to supplement the record post-inquest. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and, accordingly, no award is made for lost earnings.

E. Future Medical Expenses

Plaintiff offered no testimony and presented no evidence as to any future medical expenses or treatment. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and, accordingly, no award is made for future medical expenses or treatment.

F. Statutory Costs and Taxable Disbursements

The Court further notes, for the sake of clarity, that certain statutory costs and taxable disbursements, such as filing fees, service fees, and transcript costs necessarily incurred, may, in appropriate circumstances, be recoverable by a prevailing party pursuant to CPLR § 8101 and § 8301. The Court is mindful of its discretion to award such relief where it is properly sought and supported.

Here, however, no documentary evidence establishing statutory costs or taxable disbursements was offered, marked, or admitted into evidence at the inquest, nor was testimony elicited delineating such expenses in a manner sufficient to permit an award. In the absence of any evidentiary foundation, the Court cannot exercise its discretion to grant statutory costs or disbursements, notwithstanding that such relief might otherwise have been available had it been properly proved.

V. Conclusions and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Plaintiff is awarded Judgment against Defendant Bryant Bullock in the amount of $150,000.00 [ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] for past pain and suffering; and it is further,

ORDERED, that no judgment for future pain and suffering is awarded; and it is further,

ORDERED, that no judgment for medical expenses is awarded; and it is further,

ORDERED, that no judgment for lost wages / loss of earnings is awarded; and it is further,

ORDERED, that no judgment for future medical expenses is awarded; and it is further,

ORDERED, that no judgment for statutory costs or taxable disbursements is awarded; and it is further,

ORDERED, that plaintiff is awarded statutory interest at 9% per annum, on said sum pursuant to CPLR § 5001 [a] [b] and CPLR § 5002 from the date of entry of this Judgment; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

This constitutes the final Decision and Order of the court. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Dated: April 15, 2026

Staten Island, New York

E N T E R,

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT