You are here: / / ​ THE CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE WHEN PLAINTIFF DID N...
,

​ THE CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE WHEN PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY BY PROVIDING DEFENDANTS WITH MEDICAL AUTHORIZATIONS BY THE SPECIFIED DATE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO REASONABLE EXCUSE, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff should have precluded from presenting any medical evidence at trial because plaintiff failed to comply with the conditional order requiring plaintiff to provide defendants with medical authorizations by a specified date:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to comply with the conditional order by providing authorizations for the individuals and entities listed in the defendants’ supplemental demands for authorizations. …

… [T]he conditional order became absolute on February 14, 2020, and to be relieved from the adverse impact of the conditional order, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the conditional order and a potentially meritorious cause of action … . The plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the conditional order, and thus, we need not reach the issue of whether he demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Since the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing to be relieved from the adverse impact of the conditional order, the Supreme Court should not have imposed a limitation on the directive in the conditional order precluding the plaintiff from presenting at trial any medical evidence on the issue of damages … . Martin v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 04907, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the preclusion order became absolute when plaintiff failed to provide medical authorizations to defendants by the specified date. Plaintiff had no excuse for the failure to comply. Therefore plaintiff should have been precluded from offering any medical evidence at trial.

 

You might also like
NO INDICATION MOTHER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED PRIOR TO A FACT-FINDING HEARING IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF THE CARRIER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT ITS INSURED’S CAR HAD BEEN STOLEN; THE UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER’S PETITION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Owner of Land through Which Power Lines Pass Pursuant to a Utility Easement (Servient Owner) Does Not Have a Duty to Maintain the Easement—Servient Owner Not Liable for Damage to Abutting Property Stemming from a Vegetation Fire Started by Sparks from the Power Lines
​ THE MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION WAS BASED ON THE POLICE OFFICER’S UNEXPLAINED CONCLUSION THE DOCUMENT WAS FORGED AND DID NOT ALLEGE FACTS TO SUPPORT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE; CONVICTION REVERSED AND INFORMATION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT REQUIRED A HOMEOWNER TO TAKE DOWN A FENCE; HOWEVER THE AUTHORITY FOR THE HEAVY FINE (OVER $35,000) WAS NOT VALID PURSUANT TO THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (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

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED...