NY Post: MTA allegedly uses secret clean up crews to cover up accidents

[Via Garibaldi 8]

MTA allegedly uses secret clean up crews to cover up accidents

 

By Susan Edelman

 

July 15, 2017 | 10:15pm | Updated

 

 

 

The MTA has mobile crash squads around the city that swoop down on the scenes of bus collisions — and orchestrate cover-ups, a lawyer charges.

 

“It’s all about damage control,” said attorney Michael Gunzburg, who represents an injured bus rider. No less than 10 MTA investigators descended on the crash site where his client was hurt — several arriving even before ambulances.

 

An army of MTA supervisors in every borough — at least five in Queens alone — are given cars and assigned to pounce when bus accidents happen, according to court testimony. They do measurements, interview witnesses, take photographs and write reports for risk management and claims.

 

Queens MTA worker Victor Santiago told a court last week he’s dashed to hundreds of bus accidents — “one or two a day or more” — now mostly “high-profile” crashes.

 

In his case, Gunzburg argued, the MTA either failed to gather evidence or hid it.

 

“They come in and try to cover up the accident,” he told a Queens civil court last week. “This is how they handle all accidents.”

 

The jury agreed. On Friday, it found the MTA and bus driver Dameion Soman 100 percent negligent in the 2007 crash on Parsons Boulevard and the Grand Central Parkway service road. It allegedly caused disabling injuries to passenger Manuel Reyes, 43, a former cabby and father of two.

 

Reyes told cops that the driver sped up and ran a red light, then smashed into a car and hit the brakes.

Soman testified last week that he had a green light.

 

Manuel Reyes (left) and Dameion Soman Angel Chevrestt

 

 

Gunzburg cited the MTA’s missing or faulty evidence. Among the examples:

• No MTA photos showed where the bus stopped after the crash. Reyes testified it careened across two southbound lanes. But an MTA diagram suggests it stayed in the northbound lanes, and photos show it in different spots. “They moved the bus,” Gunzburg said.
• MTA investigators took statements from all or most of 14 bus passengers, including five at the hospital, but produced only Reyes’ statement.
• Santiago testified a colleague downloaded a “black box”-like device, which records the bus’ speed and braking, but that information wasn’t provided.

“There were 10 [MTA responders] there. What happened to all their work product?” Gunzburg said after the verdict.

 

MTA lawyer Manuel Reynoso denied a “conspiracy” to hide or skew the evidence, saying all reports and photos were turned over. He called the cover-up charge “absolute nonsense.”

 

“Yes, 10 people came to the scene,” he told the jury, adding sarcastically, “I apologize that the MTA takes these things seriously.”

 

The same six-member jury will return on Monday to determine damages and compensation for Reyes.

 

Source: http://nypost.com/2017/07/15/mta-allegedly-uses-secret-clean-up-crews-to-cover-up-accidents/

[Around the Horn]

Surprise, surprise... Once again the Post publishes a sensationalist article based on the opinion of one lawyer who's currently engaged in a case against an MTA bus operator...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Surprise, surprise... Once again the Post publishes a sensationalist article based on the opinion of one lawyer who's currently engaged in a case against an MTA bus operator...

The Post didn't say that the was doing this.  The title clearly says "allegedly".  The Post also didn't make this case up.  There is no disputing that there was an accident and apparently the jury believed that there was sufficient evidence to rule against the .  I've been in three accidents (all relatively minor) and can personally vouch for what the article says about having staff there on the scene quite quickly.  I've also worked in insurance for a GC, and the one thing we always discussed with our agent was mitigating risk.  I'm pretty sure that legal has been looking for ways to either limit the amount of lawsuits and or the amount of monies paid in damages or both.  Given the amount of accidents that occur and what we've seen of late (two derailments in the last few months alone), it becomes quite expensive paying out hush money.  Legal probably analyzes the types of accidents that occur and why and how frequently and how much they're paying out and then sees how they can reduce their liability.

 

It makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.  If all you have is evidence from the , well then it's just their word against the party bringing the claim.

[MHV9218]

I've been in three accidents (all relatively minor) and can personally vouch for what the article says about having staff there on the scene quite quickly. 

 

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this idiotic, hare-brained, and sensationalist article from the tin foil-hat Post, and everything to do with appropriate responses to issues of public safety. Poorly-vetted, purposefully misleading, and generally worthless article. Not worth the repost.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this idiotic, hare-brained, and sensationalist article from the tin foil-hat Post, and everything to do with appropriate responses to issues of public safety. Poorly-vetted, purposefully misleading, and generally worthless article. Not worth the repost.

You're just saying that because it's the Post.  I expected you to come out guns blazing. 

[MHV9218]

You're just saying that because it's the Post.  I expected you to come out guns blazing. 

 

I'm saying that because it's a stupid article. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm saying that because it's a stupid article. 

Sure it is because it's the Post.  The has been facing a litany of lawsuits, but it's stupid to bring this up and the possibility of them trying to mitigate risk.  

[Around the Horn]

The Post didn't say that the was doing this.  The title clearly says "allegedly".  The Post also didn't make this case up.  

 

They know full well that most people who read that won't pay attention to the allegedly part and focus on the MTA covering up accidents part.

 

The Post knows exactly what they're doing... Same thing with that nonsense article about the MARC cars.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

They know full well that most people who read that won't pay attention to the allegedly part and focus on the MTA covering up accidents part.

 

The Post knows exactly what they're doing... Same thing with that nonsense article about the MARC cars.

I don't think that the people that are sweltering in those cars think it's a nonsense article.  Not one bit.  As I said, a jury agreed with the lawyer in this case, so obviously he knows what he's talking about and presented a good enough case to win.  

[Around the Horn]

I don't think that the people that are sweltering in those cars think it's a nonsense article.  Not one bit.  

 

Yeah, but the idea that the LIRR maliciously took away their AC is ridiculous...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yeah, but the idea that the LIRR maliciously took away their AC is ridiculous...

Actually I don't think it is at all.  They care more about seasonal Hampton riders than their regular commuters. There's something terribly wrong with that.  That's like MNRR saying yeah, we're having special events at Yankee stadium, so let's take our newer trains and use it for them and take the older beat up trains and put them on the Hudson and Harlem lines.  Deliberately or not, the fact that they're using hand-me-down trains for their regular commuters is absurd.  You give your monthly commuters the best because they're your bread and butter, and as a regular rider, there are certain unwritten rules that should be followed. I'd be furious if I had to ride some garbage like that with no AC paying hundreds of dollars a month.

[Around the Horn]

Actually I don't think it is at all.  They care more about seasonal Hampton riders than their regular commuters. There's something terribly wrong with that.  That's like MNRR saying yeah, we're having special events at Yankee stadium, so let's take our newer trains and use it for them and take the older beat up trains and put them on the Hudson and Harlem lines.  Deliberately or not, the fact that they're using hand-me-down trains for their regular commuters is absurd.  You give your monthly commuters the best because they're your bread and butter, and as a regular rider, there are certain unwritten rules that should be followed. I'd be furious if I had to ride some garbage like that with no AC paying hundreds of dollars a month.

 

The MARC cars aren't garbage. They're some of the most durable commuter cars ever built and in impeccable shape according to SEPTA employees and the SEPTA brass, when they borrowed them last year. In fact, I'd argue they're better than the C3s LIRR has. In any event, Montauk has so much ridership, you couldn't even try to put a single level train on there, yet that Port Jefferson train has less ridership so the cars can handle it. It just so happened two of the cars' AC broke while on Long Island. 

 

Apparently, the MTA is special because the same exact cars were at SEPTA without a single issue last year and they kept extending the lease as long as they could because they loved them so much.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The MARC cars aren't garbage. They're some of the most durable commuter cars ever built and in impeccable shape according to SEPTA employees and the SEPTA brass, when they borrowed them last year. In fact, I'd argue they're better than the C3s LIRR has. In any event, Montauk has so much ridership, you couldn't even try to put a single level train on there, yet that Port Jefferson train has less ridership so the cars can handle it. It just so happened two of the cars' AC broke while on Long Island. 

 

Apparently, the MTA is special because the same exact cars were at SEPTA without a single issue last year and they kept extending the lease as long as they could because they loved them so much.

I think somebody is telling a lie.  If I could loan you a dud for $700,000, I'd tell you they're great too, even say they would built with gold if it makes a difference.    As far as I can remember, just about anything that the has purchased that was used from another agency turned into a nightmare.  You think they would learn their lesson... 

[East New York]

I was trying so hard not to comment on ANY of this nonsense.... Thanks to everyone else who posted exactly what I would have said minus my sarcasm. Lol

 

A secret clean up crew???? This is the funniest shit I've heard from The Post in a long time. I have proof in my iCloud that this is a lie. I've been on location of MANY MTA accidents, and some from the beginning to the end of the investigation. I'm definitely more credible than The Post... You can take that to Chase, BoA and Wells Fargo.

 

Wow... The A/C went out on a couple cars...... Go to the next car till it's fixed..... On purpose???? Ok.....

 

Because I have no filter... I'm going to leave it at that.....

[Cait Sith]

I think somebody is telling a lie.  If I could loan you a dud for $700,000, I'd tell you they're great too, even say they would built with gold if it makes a difference.    As far as I can remember, just about anything that the has purchased that was used from another agency turned into a nightmare.  You think they would learn their lesson... 

That's not entirely true.

 

For buses, most of what they got did fairly well. Can't say much for the trains since I don't recall them getting any used equipment until recently.

 

The LIRR C3s....well, they are pretty terrible too. The AC on those units are horrible. MNRR's overall fleet has better climate control than LIRR's fleet.

 

As for the post's article....they've always had the tendency to grossly exaggerate on details in MTA articles, especially when they have articles on summer service reductions, which is normal, but they make it seem like doomsday cuts. It's a fact that they've always sensationalized articles, and they've been voted to be the least credible news source several times over the years.