You are here: / / THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES...
, , , ,

THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES IS APPEALABLE; DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES ATTRIBUTING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TO NON-PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from asserting the negligence of non-parties (CPLR article 16 defenses) as an affirmative defenses. The court noted that, although the a ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable, a ruling on a motion which seeks to limit the legal theories which can be asserted is appealable:

“Generally, an order ruling [on a motion in limine], even when made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . There is, however, “a distinction between an order that ‘limits the admissibility of evidence,’ which is not appealable . . . , and one that ‘limits the legal theories of liability to be tried’ or the scope of the issues at trial, which is appealable” … . * * *

… [D]efendants are entitled to assert their CPLR article 16 defenses regarding the nonparty providers. “As provided in CPLR 1601 (1), a defendant may raise the CPLR article 16 defense regarding a nonparty tortfeasor, provided that the plaintiff could obtain jurisdiction over that party” … . Here, defendants are entitled to raise their pleaded affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR article 16 … because plaintiff could have sought to maintain an action against the nonparty providers in Supreme Court … .

The crux of the issue on appeal is whether defendants were required, in response to plaintiff’s demands for bills of particulars, to particularize the pleaded CPLR article 16 defense, and thus whether the court properly precluded them from asserting that defense at trial when they did not timely particularize that defense. We conclude that no such particularization was required under the circumstances of this case, and thus that the court erred in precluding defendants from asserting the CPLR article 16 defense at trial. Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04273, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: Motions in limine generally are not appealable. But motions seeking to preclude legal theories of liability are appealable.

Practice Point: Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from presenting CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses on the ground the defenses were not particularized in the bill of particulars. It was not clear the demands related to the CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses.

 

You might also like
THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT HER BOYFRIEND, WHO USED TO BE THE BOYFRIEND OF THE MURDER VICTIM, CONFESSED TO KILLING THE VICTIM (FOURTH DEPT).
​ THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE KIDNAPPING CONVICTION AND THE INCLUSORY-CONCURRENT-COUNT DOCTRINE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE FORCIBLE TOUCHING CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY TERMINATING IT WITHOUT GIVING PLAINTIFF THE TIME TO CURE DEFICIENCIES CALLED FOR IN THE CONTRACT (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS OFTEN ABSENT FROM SCHOOL WARRANTED A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
Town Board’s Terminating, Without Notice, Plaintiff’s Construction Project Violated Plaintiff’s Right to Substantive Due Process/Town Was Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity
PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW MOTHER TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE FROM FLORIDA.

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

THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT MEET THE PARTICULARITY... THE OWNER OF LAND HAS AN ABSOLUTE PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE SURFACE WATERS COLLECTED...