You are here: / / SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN...
, , , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PROPERLY ORDERED THAT THE DEPOSITION BE SUPERVISED BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON BOTH SIDES DURING A PRIOR DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly issued a protective order limiting the deposition questioning of a doctor (Brem) in this medical malpractice action and properly ordered that the deposition be supervised. Both sides had engaged in misconduct at the prior deposition:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of Winthrop’s [the hospital’s] motion which were for a protective order to the extent of limiting further questioning of Brem solely to his observations and treatment of decubitis ulcers sustained by Slapo [plaintiff’s decedent] and to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a special referee. While we agree with the court’s characterization of the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney at Brem’s deposition, we observe that the defense attorneys violated 22 NYCRR 221.1 by making numerous objections and making speaking objections. We further note that Brem violated 22 NYCRR 221.2 by refusing to answer questions. Given the obstructive conduct by the defense attorneys and Brem in violation of 22 NYCRR part 221, and the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney during the deposition, we agree with the court that appropriate supervision of the balance of Brem’s deposition is necessary. Because both sides have engaged in arguably sanctionable conduct during the course of Brem’s deposition … , it was inappropriate to compel the plaintiff to solely bear the cost of supervision thereof. Further, without the consent of all the parties, the court may not compel a party to pay for or contribute to the cost of an outside referee (see CPLR 3104[b] …). Accordingly, we modify the order so as to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a court-employed special referee … , a judicial hearing officer, or a court attorney referee. Slapo v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04887, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

You might also like
Allegations of Fraud in the Inducement Did Not Invalidate the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement
LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS TAKING DOWN A PLYWOOD FENCE WHEN A PIECE OF PLYWOOD FELL AND STRUCK HIM ON THE HEAD; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THE INCIDENT WAS ELEVATION-RELATED; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE CAUSES OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THE TRIER OF FACT WOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO SPECULATION ABOUT WHETHER THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, THE ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Statutory 9% Interest Rate, Not Contractual 18% Rate, Should Have Been Applied to Breach of Contract Damages (Even Though the Monthly Payments Were Deposited in an Escrow Account During Litigation)
Allegation that Town Planted a Tree Near a Sidewalk and Did Not Maintain the Roots, Thereby Creating a Dangerous Condition, Is an Allegation of “Nonfeasance,” not an “Affirmative Act of Negligence”
Failure to Move to Sever Unrelated Counts of Indictment Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
THE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND THE CITY DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY ROADWAY DEFECTS IN THE AREA; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

AN AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE ALLOWING A LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS PROPERLY APPLIED... PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION...