RYE, NY (October 1, 2026) — The City of Rye has been dismissed from Jeanine Pirro’s personal injury lawsuit over her 2025 fall outside Rye City Hall, a ruling Pirro has appealed, while Consolidated Edison is now asking a Westchester County Supreme Court judge to strike her remaining complaint over what the utility says is a failure to provide required discovery.
The latest development came Sept. 30, when Con Edison filed a motion asking Justice David J. Squirrell to strike Pirro’s complaint for what the utility characterized as a “willful failure to comply with outstanding discovery demands.” The motion is returnable Nov. 2.
Con Edison said it served Pirro with discovery demands seeking a verified bill of particulars, witness information, statements, cell phone and digital information, insurance information, medical and employment records and authorizations, social media information, prior or subsequent injury information, expert witness information and litigation funding information, among other records.
The utility said it sent Pirro good-faith correspondence April 28 in an effort to resolve the outstanding discovery issues without seeking court intervention.
Con Edison now claims Pirro has failed to provide the outstanding discovery, failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the noncompliance and failed to meaningfully respond to its requests.
The utility argues the missing information has prevented it from fully investigating Pirro’s claims, evaluating liability and damages, conducting depositions, retaining experts and preparing dispositive motions.
Con Edison is asking Squirrell to strike Pirro’s complaint. Alternatively, the utility wants the judge to order Pirro to provide complete discovery responses within 30 days and potentially bar her from offering evidence at trial concerning undisclosed items or dismiss the complaint if she continues to fail to comply.
The discovery fight comes weeks after Rye won its effort to get out of the lawsuit entirely.
On Sept. 11, Squirrell granted Rye’s motion to dismiss Pirro’s amended complaint against the city, as well as Con Edison’s cross-claim against Rye.
Pirro appealed the ruling Sept. 23 to the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. Her notice of appeal says she is appealing “each and every part” of Squirrell’s decision as well as the decision as a whole.
How the Case Began
The lawsuit stems from Pirro’s fall on Aug. 28, 2025, while she was walking on Boston Post Road near Purchase Street and Cross Street, directly across from Rye City Hall.
Pirro alleged she tripped over a large wooden block embedded in and protruding from beneath a steel plate covering an excavation in the roadway, causing serious personal injuries.
The wooden block, known as a chock, had been placed as part of a Con Edison gas main renovation project conducted under Rye Department of Public Works Permit 3919. The project ran from May through November 2025 and was still underway when Pirro fell.
Pirro filed a notice of claim Oct. 31, 2025, followed by an amended notice of claim Nov. 6. A 50-h hearing was held Dec. 17, and Pirro filed her original lawsuit Jan. 8, 2026.
Rye initially moved to dismiss the lawsuit Feb. 2. Pirro filed an amended complaint Feb. 11, prompting the city to withdraw that motion and file a new motion to dismiss in April.
At the center of Rye’s defense was the city’s prior written notice requirement. Under Article 23 of the Rye City Charter, a civil action arising from a dangerous condition cannot be maintained against the city unless the city first received written notice of the defect.
City Engineer Ryan X. Coyne said Rye had received no such notice.
“The City did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defects set forth in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,” Coyne said in an affirmation filed with the court.
Rye also argued that it performed no work at the location, did not inspect the site during the relevant period, had no role in placing or maintaining the steel plate or wooden block and received no notice of an allegedly dangerous condition.
The permit placed responsibility for maintaining the pavement on Con Edison until final restoration and required Con Edison to cover temporary trenches with adequately sized steel plates at the end of each day. Rye retained a right to inspect the work, but the permit did not generally require the city to inspect while construction was underway.
Pirro did not contend that Rye had received prior written notice. Instead, she argued that the city had inspected the site and therefore had notice of the condition. She also argued that because the gas main being repaired served City Hall, Rye received a special benefit from the project that made the prior written notice requirement inapplicable.
Squirrell rejected those arguments.
The judge found that City Hall was one of the properties served by the gas main but that the benefit was not exclusive to the city. He also found that the work was neither requested nor directed by Rye and concluded that the special-use exception did not apply.
Squirrell granted Rye’s motion to dismiss the complaint and Con Edison’s cross-claim against the city, leaving Con Edison as the defendant and Elecnor Hawkeye LLC as the third-party defendant.
The court scheduled a preliminary conference for Oct. 5.
Pirro’s appeal now seeks review of the ruling that removed Rye from the case, while Con Edison’s new motion puts Pirro’s remaining claims before Squirrell under a separate challenge based on the utility’s allegations concerning discovery.
RELATED
Rye Won’t Take the Fall for Jeanine Pirro’s Tumble Outside City Hall (04/21/2026)
What Did Jeanine Pirro Actually Allege — And Is the City of Rye Likely to Prevail? (02/17/2026)
This article was prepared with the assistance of AI tools under the direction and editing of Robert Cox.
Have information about this story? Email robertcox@talkofthesound (preferred) or contact via WhatsApp: +353 089 972 0669.
Discover more from Talk of the Sound
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.