Papers Numbered NYSCEFDoc. Nos. 43-60DECISION AND ORDER
*1 This case concerns a passenger who “doored” a cyclist while exiting a taxi. Specifically, the motion and cross motion stem from personal injuries allegedly sustained by a bicyclist in lower Manhattan, in the afternoon of October 28, 2014, when he struck the open, rear passenger door of a taxi. The plaintiff alleges that the taxi passenger, co-defendant Charlita Cecelia Cardwell (“Cardwell”), opened the door negligently in the vehicle owned by defendant Panama Yellow Taxi Inc. (“Panama”) and driven by codefendant Mohammad G. Mazumder (“Mazumder”). Cardwell, the passenger, seeks summary judgment dismissing both the complaint and all cross claims as against her. First, as a general proposition, there can be no dispute that a taxi is a common carrier. This Court has previously stated that, as such, the primary purpose of a taxi driver is to carry safely. See, Tinsley v. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n, ___ Misc. 3d ______, 62 N.Y.S.3d 769 (Sup. Ct. Queens County 2017).Although opposing the motion, neither counsel for the plaintiff nor the attorneys for defendants Panama and Mazumder cite to any transcripts of the examinations before trial (“EBT”) that would indicate how the plaintiff may have been negligent. This Court thus undertook the task of reading the voluminous EBT transcripts. The plaintiff bicyclist admits that his bike was equipped with a bell. EBT of plaintiff Moss, page 139. There is no indication whether plaintiff rang the bell. Co-defendant Cardwell testified that the accident occurred in the middle of a work day and that she did not consume any alcohol that day prior to the accident. EBT of co-defendant Cardwell, pages 10-11.