You are here: / / DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD...
,

DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A DISMISSAL FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a court order precluding evidence because of a failure to comply with discovery demands was not documentary evidence which utterly refuted the allegations of legal malpractice in the complaint. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss should not have been granted. Although the order opined that the evidence, had it been produced would not have demonstrated legal malpractice, that portion of the order was dicta:

​

… [T]he complaint alleges that the defendants, Anthony P. Gallo, P.C., and Anthony P. Gallo (hereinafter together Gallo), who represented the plaintiff in a prior legal malpractice action against the plaintiff’s former attorneys, Demartin & Rizzo, P.C., and Joseph N. Rizzo, Jr. (hereinafter together Rizzo), negligently failed to respond to certain discovery demands by Rizzo, which resulted in the Supreme Court … precluding the introduction of evidence in the plaintiff’s legal malpractice action against Rizzo (… hereinafter the Rizzo order). The complaint further alleges that, as a result of this evidence being precluded, the court which issued the Rizzo order found that the plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof as to the element of damages sustained as a result of Rizzo’s malpractice. * * *

​

… [T]he Rizzo order does not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint, nor does it establish a defense as a matter of law. The order concludes, in part, that there was no proof of actual damages presented by the plaintiff, due to the plaintiff’s failure to respond to at least two of Rizzo’s discovery demands, which resulted in the preclusion of the damages evidence. The Rizzo order then states, referring to the precluded evidence, “[m]oreover, even if, arguendo the [c]ourt were to overlook that deficiency, its probative value is highly suspect” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, this alternate holding, which constitutes dicta, was not a finding on the merits and did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint against Gallo … . 4777 Food Servs. Corp. v Anthony P. Gallo, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 04086, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A DISMISSAL FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A DISMISSAL FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A DISMISSAL FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A DISMISSAL FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)

You might also like
A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball
THE TERMINATED SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THE EDUCATION LAW; ALTHOUGH PETITIONER NOTIFIED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUPERINTENDENT AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS AWARE OF THE ACTION, FAILURE TO SERVE THE BOARD WAS A FATAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).
Pedestrian Struck from Behind Was Not Comparatively Negligent as a Matter of Law
THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE ENVELOPE RULE (RPAPL 1304) (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED UPON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THE COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW EACH OTHER, THE TRIAL TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT IN FACT KNEW EACH OTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THAT THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE BE RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
BEFORE SUING A TORTFEASOR’S INSURER, PLAINTIFF MUST OBTAIN A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO... SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING...