You are here: / / CERTAIN DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION...
, ,

CERTAIN DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON BEHALF OF A FORMER RESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain discovery demands by plaintiff should have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was a resident at defendant’s residential care facility and plaintiff brought an action against the facility alleging negligent care and violations of Public Health law 2801-d:

Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were to compel the defendants to comply with (1) his discovery demand number 30, (2) his discovery demand number 32 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to meals provided to” the decedent, (3) his discovery demand number 33 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to bed changing records for” the decedent, (4) his discovery demand number 34 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to [the] movement of” the decedent, (5) his discovery demand number 35 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to [the] washing of” the decedent, (6) his discovery demand number 36 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to the change of position of” the decedent, and (7) his discovery demand number 51. Those demands related to the decedent’s care, the staffing of nurses and nursing assistants who provided care to the decedent, and complaints or investigations of alleged substandard care or abuse involving the decedent … . Olmann v Willoughby Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04750, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

You might also like
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED.
A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).
IN MOVING TO VACATE A MORE THAN $2 MILLION DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS MED MAL CASE, DEFENDANT DOCTOR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SHE WAS EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS; A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
County Did Not Demonstrate Its Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Re: Obstructed Intersection
BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, A SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
LANDOWNERS NEGATED BOTH POTENTIAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER A CONDOMINIUM TO MAKE... CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED DESPITE FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT...