You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

DEFENDANT’S HEALTH AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS NEVER PLACED IN CONTROVERSY AND THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE WAS NOT WAIVED BY A LETTER TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY INDICATING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM DEMENTIA, ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant driver’s (Rozansky’s) medical condition at the time of this 2004 traffic accident was not “in controversy” and therefore the driver’s medical records were not discoverable. Rozansky, who subsequently died, had, in 2006, submitted a letter from his social worker to plaintiff’s attorney claiming he suffered from dementia, anxiety and depression, allegedly to be excused from a deposition, but otherwise the issue of the Rozansky’s health was not raised:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating that Rozansky’s condition at the time of the accident was “in controversy” within the meaning of CPLR 3121(a) … . Furthermore, even if the plaintiffs had met that burden, neither Rozansky nor his estate waived the privilege attached to the medical records, as the defendant has not asserted a counterclaim or sought to excuse Rozansky’s conduct at the time of the accident on the basis of some condition … . Contrary to the conclusion of our dissenting colleagues, Rozansky did not place his mental condition at the time of the accident “in controversy” or waive the privilege attached to his medical records by allegedly declining to be deposed … . Neither Rozansky nor his estate have sought to excuse his conduct at the time of the accident … , due to any condition. At best, Rozansky placed his mental condition in September 2006 at issue by allegedly refusing to appear for a deposition … . The plaintiffs could have moved at that time to compel the deposition and challenged the social worker’s diagnosis. Instead, nine years after the social worker’s letter, and six years after Rozansky’s death, and after filing three notes of issue over the course of some seven years, indicating that discovery was complete and the case was ready for trial, the plaintiffs purported to use the mechanism of a trial subpoena to compel production of Rozansky’s medical records from October 22, 1999, to the present. We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that Rozansky’s alleged invocation of dementia in September 2006, by submission of a letter from his social worker, established a waiver of the privilege attached to his medical records from October 22, 1999. Peterson v Estate of John Rozansky, 2019 NY Slip Op 02568, Second Department, 4-3-19

 

,

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH PARITY LAW (TIMOTHY’S LAW) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that New York’s mental health parity law (Timothy’s Law, Insurance Law 3221(1)(5) and 4303(g)) did not create a private right of action over and above the administrative enforcement provisions. Plaintiff alleged the health insurance benefits administered by defendants were far more restrictive for mental health than for general medical claims:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that ” regardless of its consistency with the basic legislative goal, a private right of action should not be judicially sanctioned if it is incompatible with the enforcement mechanism chosen by the Legislature or with some other aspect of the over-all statutory scheme'” … . Thus, where “the legislature clearly contemplated administrative enforcement of the statute, “[t]he question then becomes whether, in addition to administrative enforcement, an implied private right of action would be consistent with the legislative scheme”‘” …  . …

… .[D]eterminations of whether the law had been violated require[] complex, fact-based determinations about medical necessity, and DFS [NYS Department of Financial Services] had implemented a comprehensive system to evaluate appeals following denials of coverage  … . … “[A]llowing people to litigate these issues in court might yield duplicative or inconsistent results” … . Kamins v United Healthcare Ins. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02507, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence should not have been granted in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff and defendant had entered a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) in which plaintiff agreed to purchase defendant, Symbio, for between $100 and $110 million. The opinion is fact specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Plaintiff’s claims are not definitively contradicted by the documentary evidence. The record (to the extent there is one on this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211) demonstrates the existence of issues of fact concerning when plaintiff determined that there was a matter that might give rise to a right of indemnification so that it was required to give notice pursuant to section 8.03(a) of the parties’ contract. …

Further, defendants’ defense of a condition precedent is not conclusively established. Even if section 8.03(a) might be construed as a condition precedent (which is highly doubtful), there has been no showing regarding the materiality of the provision as would be necessary given that nonoccurrence of the condition would lead to a draconian forfeiture.  XI Lux Holdco S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02437, First Dept 3-28-19

 

, ,

ACTION BASED UPON FAILURE TO SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A HOSPITAL REST ROOM SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action, which alleged inadequate supervision when plaintiff used a hospital rest room, sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the action was time-barred:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to properly assess her condition and the degree of her supervisory needs in the restroom, a claim sounding in medical malpractice, and her action, brought three years after her injuries, is therefore untimely … . Because the loss of consortium claim is derivative of the injured plaintiff’s claim, that cause of action must also be dismissed as untimely … . Kim v New York Presbyt., 2019 NY Slip Op 02425, First Dept 3-28-19

 

, , ,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES TO BE PAID FOR 13 HOURS WAS NOT IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a minimum wage order applicable to home health aides was not irrational or unreasonable. The matter was sent back for consideration of other grounds for class certification:

The common issue presented in these joint appeals is whether, pursuant to the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order), an employer must pay its home health care aide employees for each hour of a 24-hour shift. DOL has interpreted its Wage Order to require payment for at least 13 hours of a 24-hour shift if the employee is allowed a sleep break of at least 8 hours—and actually receives five hours of uninterrupted sleep—and three hours of meal break time. DOL’s interpretation of its Wage Order does not conflict with the promulgated language, nor has DOL adopted an irrational or unreasonable construction, and so the Appellate Division erred in rejecting that interpretation. Therefore, we reverse the Appellate Division orders and remit for consideration of alternative grounds for class certification for alleged violations of New York’s Labor Law, inclusive of defendants’ alleged systematic denial of wages earned and due, unaddressed by the courts below because of their erroneous rejection of DOL’s interpretation. Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02258, CtApp 3-26-19

 

​

, , , ,

DECEDENT’S CONSENT TO SURGERY SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, THE CONSENT WAS AUTHENTICATED BY THE MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice and wrongful death actions should have been dismissed. With respect to the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, the court held that the submission of the informed consent form by the defendant did not violate the Dead Man’s Statute:

The plaintiff contends that Meyerson [defendant surgeon] cannot rely upon the portion of his expert’s affidavit which states that the decedent was aware of the risks of the procedure because he signed a consent form for a similar procedure in 2012, because this evidence would be inadmissible pursuant to CPLR 4519, the so-called Dead Man’s Statute. CPLR 4519 “precludes a party or person interested in the underlying event from offering testimony concerning a personal transaction or communication with the decedent” … .

While evidence excludable at trial under CPLR 4519 may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment so long as it is not the sole evidence proffered … , such evidence “should not be used to support summary judgment” … . However, the statute does not bar “the introduction of documentary evidence against a deceased’s estate. . . . [A]n adverse party’s introduction of a document authored by a deceased does not violate the Dead Man’s Statute, as long as the document is authenticated by a source other than an interested witness’s testimony concerning a transaction or communication with the deceased” … . Inasmuch as the expert’s affidavit as to the decedent’s execution of the form was predicated upon the medical records, which contained the decedent’s consent form for the prior surgery and on which the expert relied, and the records were properly authenticated and submitted on the motion, Meyerson properly relied upon the expert opinion to support his motion … . Wright v Morning Star Ambulette Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02381, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , ,

STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THEORIES IN THE PLEADINGS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this student-on-student assault case. The assault arose abruptly and and lasted 20 to 30 seconds and was not foreseeable. In addition, the theories of liability not mentioned in the notice of claim, but asserted in the pleadings, should have been dismissed:

… [T]he School District established, prima facie, that the alleged assault by the fellow student was an unforeseeable act and that the School District had no actual or constructive notice of prior conduct of the students involved here which was similar to the subject incident … . Moreover, the School District established, prima facie, that “the incident occurred in so short a period of time that any negligent supervision on its part was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries” … . …

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . However, if the defendant is a municipality, the plaintiff may not raise in the complaint causes of action or legal theories that were not directly or indirectly mentioned in the notice of claim and that “substantially alter” the nature of the claim or add a new theory of liability … . … By submitting evidence that the notice of claim did not mention … causes of action and legal theories, the School District established its … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing all of the causes of action, other than negligent supervision, that were asserted in the complaint and bill of particulars against the School District … . Meyer v Magalios, 2019 NY Slip Op 02336, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT FINDING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING NO DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING OR FUTURE LOST WAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER CHILD WAS INJURED IN UTERO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict finding liability in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted, and the plaintiff’s motion to set aside so much of the verdict as awarded no damages for past or future pain and suffering or future lost earnings should have been granted. The action alleged damage to plaintiff’s child in utero:

Here, the plaintiff adduced legally sufficient proof to establish a departure from the standard of care and as to causation. In particular, the plaintiff’s expert obstetrician-gynecologist, Barry Schifrin, opined that the child suffered a placental “abruption plus or minus fetomaternal transfusion,” which caused “a problem of oxygen availability in the baby’s brain.” Schifrin opined that continuous EFM testing should have been undertaken beginning on the date of the mother’s fall, November 4, 2008. Schifrin testified that the EFM performed on November 12, 2008, showed that the child had been in distress for “quite some time.” The plaintiff’s expert pediatric hematologist, Jill DeJong, opined that the child’s anemia was related to a fetomaternal transfusion. Based on that evidence, the jury could have reasonably found that had the respondents undertaken or begun continuous EFM on November 10, 2008, the harm to the child would have been avoided or mitigated. Further, although the respondents’ experts opined that the respondents did not depart from accepted practice, the jury was entitled to resolve the conflicting expert testimony in the plaintiff’s favor  … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law … .

The jury’s failure to award any damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering deviates materially from reasonable compensation, in light of the evidence of the severe deficits suffered by the child, her ongoing need for medical treatment, ongoing medical events such as intractable seizures, and evidence of her consciousness and ability to interact with others (see CPLR 5501[c] …). The jury’s failure to award any damages for future lost earnings also deviates materially from reasonable compensation … . Larkin v Wagner, 2019 NY Slip Op 02327, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE, CORPORATE OFFICERS PROPERLY SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion to dismiss the trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition causes of action was properly denied. The court noted that the complaint properly alleged torts by defendants in their individual capacities without alleging facts supporting piercing the corporate veil. The Second Department held that the judge, sua sponte, should not have granted the preliminary injunction:

” [P]reliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy which will not be granted unless a clear right thereto is established under the law and the undisputed facts upon the moving papers, and the burden of showing an undisputed right rests upon the movant'” … . “As a general rule, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . “In exercising that discretion, the Supreme Court must determine if the moving party has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in favor of the injunction” … . ” [A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, a preliminary injunction will not issue where to do so would grant the movant the ultimate relief to which he or she would be entitled in a final judgment'” … .

The plaintiff did not request a preliminary injunction  … [T]he record in this case lacks evidence establishing, among other things, irreparable harm or extraordinary circumstances warranting a preliminary injunction that would, in effect, depart from the status quo and grant the plaintiff its ultimate relief … . The evidence at this stage further fails to demonstrate that the plaintiff possesses a likelihood of success on the merits … . The court therefore improvidently exercised its discretion in sua sponte awarding preliminary injunctive relief to the plaintiff. Emanuel Mizrahi, DDS, P.C. v Angela Andretta, DMD, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 02315, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , , ,

IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial, determined that videotaped deposition testimony from proceedings in other states was not admissible in the New York action. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent died from exposure to asbestos in a joint compound made by Georgia-Pacific. An employee of Georgia-Pacific, Charles Lehnert, who was familiar with the formula for the joint compound, gave the videotaped deposition testimony:

CPLR 3117 (a) (3) provides, in relevant part, that “any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used . . . by any party for any purpose against any other party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had the notice required under these rules.” Here, defendant was permitted to introduce deposition testimony given by Lehnert in the 2007 Texas state court action for the purpose of demonstrating that it contradicted the 2001 and 2003 testimony that plaintiff had been permitted to introduce as part of its case-in-chief. However, although defendant was a party to the 2007 Texas action, plaintiff was not, and he had no opportunity to be present and cross-examine Lehnert. Thus, this testimony was not admissible under CPLR 3117 (a) (3) … . …

Although defendant did not cross-appeal, our holding reversing Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Lehnert’s 2007 testimony necessarily brings up for review Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to preclude Lehnert’s 2001 and 2003 testimony (seeCPLR 5501 [a] [1] …). Upon review, we find that none of Lehnert’s deposition testimony should have been admitted into evidence at this trial. Although a live witness may be impeached with prior inconsistent testimony, Lehnert never testified for any party in this action, either at the trial itself or at any pretrial deposition. He was merely a witness who had testified years ago in multiple other states on the subject of the content of Georgia-Pacific joint compound. Rather than calling him (or any other witness) to testify on this topic, both parties resorted to retrieving video of Lehnert’s testimony in those earlier actions and selectively playing those portions they believed supported their respective contentions. The jury was essentially asked to determine whether Lehnert, an empty chair in New York, testified more credibly in Illinois or Texas. In this scenario, CPLR 3117 (a) (2) did not permit plaintiff to introduce the 2001 and 2003 depositions on his case-in-chief, and CPLR 3117 (c) did not permit defendant to impeach those depositions with another deposition. Billok v Union Carbide Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02185, Third Dept 3-21-19

 

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