You are here: / / MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR...

MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR THE CHARGE WAS TIMELY; ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE RE: EXPERT WHO DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN.

The First Department, in ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have given a missing witness charge with respect to one of plaintiff’s doctors and should have given an adverse inference charge based upon a defense expert’s failure to bring her notes, which were subpoenaed:

The party seeking a missing witness charge has the burden of promptly notifying the court when the need for such a charge arises … . The purpose of imposing such a burden is, in part, to permit the parties “to tailor their trial strategy to avoid substantial possibilities of surprise” … . Once the party requesting the charge meets its initial burden, the party opposing the request can defeat it by demonstrating that, among other things, the witness was not available, was outside of its control, or the issue about which the witness would have been called to testify is immaterial … .

Here, the record does not reflect when defendants asked for a missing witness charge for Dr. Rose. This presents the possibility that they did not do so until after plaintiff presented her case. Had that been so, plaintiff would have lost any opportunity to account for Dr. Rose’s absence, argue that plaintiff did not have the requisite control over him, or attempt to procure his appearance. Accordingly, since there is no indication that defendants met their burden, we find that the missing witness charge was improperly given. * * *

…[W]hile Dr. Elkin [a defense expert] did not, as plaintiff suggests, testify that she “destroyed” her notes, she did concede that she did not comply with the subpoena, which required her to bring with her to court the notes that she used in generating her report on behalf of defendants. The failure to produce those notes affected plaintiff’s ability to cross-examine defendants’ expert and was fundamentally unfair to plaintiff. At the least, it would have been appropriate for the court to issue an adverse inference charge … . That Dr. Elkin testified that the notes were subsumed in the report is of no moment. Plaintiff was entitled to independently investigate that claim without having to rely on Dr. Elkin’s own assurances that the notes were themselves of no probative value. Herman v Moore, 2015 NY Slip Op 09352, 1st Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

EVIDENCE (MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST WAS TIMELY)/MISSING WITNESS CHARGE (SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST WAS TIMELY)/EVIDENCE (ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE SHOULD HABE BEEN GIVEN, EXPERT DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES)/ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, EXPERT DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING OF TIMELY REQUEST)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, EXPERT DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES)

You might also like
PETITIONER, IN THIS JUDICIARY LAW 509 PROCEEDING, CAN NOT COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF JURORS TO REVEAL THE RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS AND DATES OF JURY SERVICE IN ORDER TO IMPEACH RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY THAT HE RESIDED IN PETITIONER’S BUILDING IN 2008 AND 2009 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO LOFT LAW PROTECTION UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENT FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES STEMMING FROM A BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INSURER’S DELAY IN PAYING THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING, WHICH SHIFTED WHEN WORK WAS DONE ON AN ADJOINING BUILDING, RESULTED IN AN ARRAY OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, THE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “AFFILIATES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF A RELEASE (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO DISCOVERY IN THIS SUIT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AGAINST EXXON ALLEGING FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH EXXON’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING, NO ACCOUNTANT PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK.
BELATED FILING OF COVER SHEETS, UNDER THE UNIQUE COVID-19-RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES IN NEW YORK CITY, WAS NOT A FATAL DEFECT (DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT) (FIRST 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

INTERPRETERS ARE EMPLOYEES. DESTRUCTION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN FLOODING CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY DID NOT...