You are here: / CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING...

Search Results

/ , ,

CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD.

The First Department, in an issue-rich decision which is sparse on facts, determined several jurisdiction and choice of law issues in a complex lawsuit involving a great many inter-related international corporations and allegations of fraud. One of the many jurisdiction issues discussed is so-called “conspiracy jurisdiction;” a sample of that discussion follows:

The remaining possibility for obtaining jurisdiction over defendants-appellants is conspiracy jurisdiction … . Defendants contend that the complaint does not allege an agreement by the Citco defendants to participate in a conspiracy to defraud Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Retirement Fund (MBTARF) and that MBTARF failed to identify an overt act. However, we find that the complaint contains factual allegations from which such an agreement can be inferred … . It also alleges an overt act, namely, that alleged co-conspirators Mr. Fletcher and FAM took $7.1 million of MBTARF’s investment in nonparty Fletcher Fixed Income Alpha Fund, Ltd. (Alpha) and used it in violation of Alpha’s offering memorandum as partial repayment of Leveraged’s loan to Citco Bank and SFT … .

Turning to the additional requirements for conspiracy jurisdiction … , we must examine Leveraged’s and Fletcher Income Arbitrage Fund Ltd. (Arbitrage)’s conspiracy claims with respect to personal jurisdiction. Leveraged and Arbitrage’s conspiracy claims allege that Mr. Fletcher and FAM fraudulently transferred cash from plaintiff Fletcher International, Ltd. to Unternaehrer in the FIP Transaction. The transfer was made by instructing SFT to transfer money from FIP’s account to Citco Bank’s account at HSBC New York, for further credit to SFT, for further credit to Unternaehrer. Using a New York bank account for a fraudulent scheme constitutes a tort within New York … .

MBTARF’s conspiracy claim alleges that Mr. Fletcher and FAM made misrepresentations to it about how its investment would be used. It also alleges that they diverted its money. Drawing inferences in favor of plaintiffs … , we find that the misrepresentation and diversion occurred in New York because FAM and Mr. Fletcher were located there.

We find that the additional Lawati factors (102 AD3d at 428) are satisfied as to Citco Group but not Citco Global. Since Citco Group is the parent, it is logical to infer that Citco Cayman (a New York co-conspirator because it has not contested jurisdiction) acted under its control. However, since Citco Global is only a sibling of Citco Cayman, it is not as logical to infer that Citco Cayman acted under Citco Global’s control. FIA Leveraged Fund Ltd. v Grant Thornton LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 03887, 1st Dept 5-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/JURISDICTION  (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/CORPORATION LAW (JURISDICTION, CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/FRAUD (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, reinstated a couple of causes of action in a lawsuit stemming from the purchase of residential mortgage-backed securities, the bulk of which was deemed time-barred. A limited backstop guaranty cause of action and a cause of action stemming from the failure to notify of a material breach were reinstated. The intertwined contracts and guarantees and the legal reasoning stemming from recent similar cases are too detailed to fairly summarize here. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v WMC Mtge., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03881, 1st Dept 5-11-17

 

SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/CONTRACT LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)

/

LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY IS NONDELEGABLE AND EXTENDS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The scaffolding plaintiff was using collapsed and he fell 40 feet. The defendants alleged that the improper assembly of the scaffolding caused the collapse and plaintiff assembled the scaffolding. Therefore the defendants argued plaintiff’s acts constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, precluding recovery. However a contract indicated that another party was responsible for supplying safety equipment and meeting OSHA requirements. The court further noted that the general contractor (Varish) could not escape liability on the ground plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee:

​

We find no merit in Varish’s contention that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply in that plaintiff was allegedly an independent contractor, not an employee. The duty to provide a safe working environment is nondelegable, and a contractor or owner and its agents may be liable “even though it exercised no control over, or supervision of, an independent contractor who performed the job” … . Griffin v AVA Realty Ithaca, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03829, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY IS NONDELEGABLE AND EXTENDS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS)/INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY IS NONDELEGABLE AND EXTENDS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS)

/ ,

MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s toxic tort (injury from mold) cause of action should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage on statute of limitations grounds. There was a question whether the symptoms plaintiff developed within three years of filing suit were qualitatively different from symptoms experienced more than three years before the suit:

The motion court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for personal injury due to toxic mold. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that, after August 2010 (within three years of commencing this action), he suffered from “new” symptoms and injuries, including, among other things, eczema and significant fungal growth on his tongue and throat. Accordingly, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that this claim is time-barred … . While there are factual questions as to whether the sinus infections and related symptoms suffered prior to August 2010 were “qualitatively different” from plaintiff’s injuries after August 2010 … , at this procedural juncture it would be improper to dismiss the claim.  Gordon v ROL Realty Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03851, 1st Dept 5-11-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)

/ ,

MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s toxic tort (injury from mold) cause of action should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage on statute of limitations grounds. There was a question whether the symptoms plaintiff developed within three years of filing suit were qualitatively different from symptoms experienced more than three years before the suit:

The motion court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for personal injury due to toxic mold. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that, after August 2010 (within three years of commencing this action), he suffered from “new” symptoms and injuries, including, among other things, eczema and significant fungal growth on his tongue and throat. Accordingly, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that this claim is time-barred … . While there are factual questions as to whether the sinus infections and related symptoms suffered prior to August 2010 were “qualitatively different” from plaintiff’s injuries after August 2010 … , at this procedural juncture it would be improper to dismiss the claim.  Gordon v ROL Realty Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03851, 1st Dept 5-11-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)

/ ,

MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER.

The Third Department, after noting that orders issued upon default are not appealable, determined mother, contrary to Family Court’s ruling, was not in default and therefore the order could be appealed:

​

In the circumstances presented, the mother was not required to seek to vacate the default judgment before taking this appeal. A party may not appeal from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511), but a party’s absence does not necessarily constitute a default, “particularly where counsel appears upon the absent party’s behalf and offers an explanation for his or her failure to attend” (… . Here, the mother’s counsel appeared and advised Family Court that he had communicated with the mother several times by phone and email, that she was then at a considerable distance in either Florida or South Carolina, and that she had a limited income. The mother’s counsel further advised the court relative to the mother’s position in the matter and participated in the proceedings by consenting to the requested relief, that is, to permit the child to remain temporarily with the father. Counsel also unsuccessfully requested a continuance, and ultimately advised that he did not have authority to consent to a final order of permanent physical placement to the father. In light of these circumstances, we find that the mother was not in default and that the order is appealable … . Matter of Linger v Linger, 2017 NY Slip Op 03822, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)/APPEALS (FAMILY COURT, DEFAULT, MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)/DEFAULT (FAMILY COURT, MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER)

/

FATHER’S REQUEST FOR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDING PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.

The First Department, reversing Family Court, over a dissent, determined respondent father had demonstrated good cause for a modification of his visitation to allow “sandwich visits,” a half hour of unsupervised visitation between two periods of supervised visitation … . The fact that there was a pending permanent neglect proceeding was not an impediment to the change in visitation. Although father had a drug problem and had been incarcerated, he was working full time and had been drug free for some time:

​

Although respondent has a history of drug abuse, which led to a period of incarceration, he has demonstrated his commitment to counseling and treatment, and has not tested positive for drugs since January 2016. Respondent has also demonstrated a desire to turn his life around, obtaining regular employment and endeavoring to build a relationship with the child, who is now almost six years old, by regularly attending the twice weekly supervised visits. It is undisputed that these visits have been positive for the child and that there are no concerns about the child’s safety in spending time with respondent.

Nor is there any evidence that the limited sandwich visits would be emotionally damaging for the child just because there is a possibility that respondent’s parental rights will be terminated at the end of the permanency proceeding. “No case has been cited for the proposition that a finding of permanent neglect and a goal of adoption are legal impediments to changing the nature of a parent’s visitation or increasing its frequency, and none has been found . . . Until the conclusion of disposition and the rendering of a decision, the outcome of this case remains uncertain” … . Matter of Gerald Y.-C. (Roland Y.), 2017 NY Slip Op 03843, 1st Dept 5-11-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FATHER’S REQUEST FOR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDING PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, FATHER’S REQUEST FOR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDING PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, FATHER’S REQUEST FOR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDING PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS)

/

TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Third Department determined the prosecutor should not have elicited testimony from an investigator about defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. The error was deemed harmless however:

​

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony about defendant’s invocation of his right to silence and to comment on that testimony in summation. “[I]t is axiomatic that when a defendant invokes his or her constitutional right against self-incrimination, the People may not use his or her silence against him or her on their direct case”… . The principle applies when a defendant unequivocally states his or her desire to halt all questioning, even if he or she has previously responded to other questions … . A State Police investigator testified at trial that he interviewed defendant after his arrest and read him his Miranda rights, which defendant stated that he understood. Defendant then willingly answered a series of questions about various topics. However, when asked if he had punched or pushed the trooper, defendant responded that “he didn’t want to say any more.” During summation, the prosecutor remarked upon this testimony, noting that when defendant was asked about striking the trooper, he had not denied that he had done so or offered an explanation, but instead had stated that he did not want to say anything else. Defendant’s counsel objected twice to these remarks, but was overruled. Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant’s statement that he did not want to say any more was an “unequivocal and unqualified invocation of [the] right” to remain silent … . People v Johnson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03804, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/SELF-INCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO AVOID (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)

/ , ,

ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE. 

The Third Department determined defendant’s oral offer to sell to plaintiff her shares in a family corporation (SEI) formed solely to hold one piece of property (Beach Cove) as its single asset was subject to the statute of frauds (and therefore unenforceable). The court further found that certain actions, like opening a bank account, did not amount to part performance sufficient to overcome the writing requirement of the statute of frauds:

​

SEI was a single-asset corporation — that single asset being its ownership of Beach Cove — and, inasmuch as the alleged oral agreement involved the sale of plaintiff’s shares of stock in a corporation whose only asset was an interest in real property, the statute of frauds indeed applied here … . As the alleged oral agreement was not reduced to writing, plaintiff could avoid application of the statute of frauds only if her conduct fell within the part performance exception. In this regard, while the actions upon which plaintiff relies — i.e., opening a bank account in anticipation of a wire transfer of funds from defendant, retrieving her SEI stock certificates to relinquish to defendant, hiring an attorney to coordinate with defendant and/or reduce the alleged oral agreement to writing, timely removing her personal possessions from Beach Cove and promptly vacating the premises in accordance with defendant’s alleged wishes — are consistent with plaintiff’s assertion that she and defendant had a deal to sell plaintiff’s shares in SEI to defendant for $900,000, such actions are not unequivocally referable to — or unintelligible without reference to — the alleged oral agreement, nor so substantial in quality to irremediably alter the situation. Wells v Hodgkins, 2017 NY Slip Op 03824, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CONTRACT LAW (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/REAL PROPERTY (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/CORPORATION LAW  (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)

/ , , ,

REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION. 

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a report sought by plaintiffs was not part of a medical or quality assurance review function or participation in a medical malpractice prevention program and therefore was not privileged pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m:

​

…[W]we find that defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the report’s privilege. Defendants did not submit an affidavit or other information from anyone with first-hand knowledge establishing that a review procedure was in place or that the report was obtained or maintained in accordance with any such review procedure … . Nevertheless, defendants argue that the face and content of the report clearly establish that it is a quality assurance review which is precluded from disclosure. Yet, nothing in the report reflects that the hospital’s Department of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement ever reviewed it … . Further, the report’s conclusory statement that it was prepared for quality assurance purposes and was shielded by the subject statutes is patently insufficient to satisfy the required standard … .

In short, the purpose of the Education Law and Public Health Law discovery exclusions is to encourage a candid peer review of physicians, and thereby improve the quality of medical care and prevent malpractice… , but such protections are not automatically available and do not prevent full disclosure where it should otherwise be provided … . Estate of Savage v Kredentser, 2017 NY Slip Op 03825, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/PRIVILEGE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

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