You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

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

 

, ,

ONCE AN ACTION TO RECOVER THE PRINCIPAL OF A BOND IS TIME-BARRED, THERE IS NO LEGALLY COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR POST-MATURITY INTEREST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, determined that a bond issuer is not obligated to pay interest once a claim for the principal is time-barred:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has asked us to decide …  “[i]f a bond issuer remains obligated to make biannual interest payments until the principal is paid, including after the date of maturity … , do enforceable claims for such biannual interest continue to accrue after a claim for principal of the bonds is time-barred?” We answer this question in the negative … . Pursuant to New York common law and the terms of the indenture, in the absence of a timely action to recover principal, a bondholder cannot enforce the conditional obligation to make post-maturity interest payments. * * *

The rule we reiterate today effectuates the agreement negotiated by the parties and reinforces our longstanding view of interest as generally dependent on principal. Moreover, it promotes the purposes underlying the statute of limitations … . For those reasons, we conclude that once a claim on the principal is time-barred, a claim to recover unpaid post-maturity interest payments is not legally cognizable. Ajdler v Province of Mendoza. 2019 NY Slip Op 02151, CtApp 3-21-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPERLY RAISED AN ISSUE NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted because the plaintiff’s expert affidavit was conclusory and speculative. The court noted that plaintiff’s expert raised an issue that was not discernable from the plaintiff’s bill of particulars and therefore should not have been considered:

…[T]he defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an expert affirmation indicating that the treatment and care given to the plaintiff by the defendant on May 13, 2013, did not deviate from accepted community standards of practice, that the plaintiff’s infection, which occurred more than four months after that visit, was too remote in time to have been proximately caused by the defendant’s treatment, and that the defendant had the plaintiff’s informed consent for the procedure.

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affirmation of her expert, who opined that the defendant did not follow the good and accepted podiatric standard of care because although the defendant tested the plaintiff’s foot pulse and found it to be low, the defendant did not refer the plaintiff to a vascular surgeon. We agree with the defendant that this assertion was not readily discernable from the allegations in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars, and, thus, was a new theory of liability that should not have been considered by the Supreme Court … . Iodice v Giordano, 2019 NY Slip Op 02072, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, ,

NONPARTY SUBPOENA PROPERLY QUASHED BECAUSE IT DID NOT PROVIDE THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF EXECUTED THE STIPULATION UNDER DURESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined: (1) the subpoena for a nonparty was defective because the reasons for the disclosure were not provided; (2) the stipulation of settlement was not demonstrated to be unconscionable as a matter of law; and (3) there were questions of fact whether the stipulation was signed under duress:

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty where the matter sought is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action … . A party seeking discovery from a nonparty must apprise the nonparty of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure (see CPLR 3101[a][4] … ). Here, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the testimony sought from the nonparty was utterly irrelevant [the nonparty was a women with whom defendant allegedly had an affair]. However, we agree with the court’s determination that the subpoenas were defective since, among other things, the defendant failed to provide the nonparty with the required explanation of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure either on the face of the subpoenas or in any accompanying material (see CPLR 3101[a][4] … ). Accordingly, we agree with the court’s granting of the nonparty’s motion to quash the subpoenas. Gandham v Gandham, 2019 NY Slip Op 02069, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the sanction imposed for plaintiff’s failure to turn over audio files and transcripts she was apparently relying upon to prove employment discrimination should not have gone beyond the terms of the conditional order of preclusion:

“A conditional order of preclusion requires a party to provide certain discovery by a date certain, or face the sanctions specified in the order” … . ” With this conditioning, the court relieves itself of the unrewarding inquiry into whether a party’s resistance was willful'” … . “When a plaintiff fails to timely comply with a conditional order of preclusion, the conditional order becomes absolute” … .

… [W]here, as here, a conditional order of preclusion specifies a penalty for the failure to comply, absent a change in circumstances, it is inappropriate for the court to impose a harsher penalty … . The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in barring the plaintiff from offering any evidence for any claim premised on the introduction of or which relies on the audio files the plaintiff failed to produce. Instead, the appropriate sanction was the one set forth in the conditional order of preclusion, which precluded the plaintiff from using the audio files and corresponding transcripts at trial unless she produced these items by a date certain, which she failed to do. Felice v Metropolitan Diagnostic Imaging Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02067, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the city in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No such motion was before the court:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the City, which did not move for such relief. “A court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Since no party made any motion with respect to the plaintiff’s direct cause of action against the City contained in the amended complaint, the court should not have granted relief with respect to that cause of action … . Cerbone v Lauriano, 2019 NY Slip Op 02056, Second Dept 3-20-29

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted, despite defendant’s failure to update its address with the Secretary of State:

There was no evidence that the defendant received actual notice of the summons delivered to the Secretary of State, which does not constitute personal delivery, in time to defend this action ). Although the defendant did not explain why it failed to update its address with the Secretary of State, “there is no necessity for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse for its delay” … . Furthermore, there is no basis in the record to conclude that the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid service, especially since the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the defendant’s Westchester County… business address at least two months before the summons and complaint were filed in this action and, thus, could have attempted to serve the defendant personally pursuant to CPLR 311 … . Nor is there any evidence that the defendant was placed on notice that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect … . Moreover, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Berardi Stone Setting, Inc. v Stonewall Contr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, , ,

AUDIT TRAIL, I.E., METADATA SHOWING WHO ACCESSED PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS, WHERE AND WHEN THEY WERE ACCESSED, AND ANY CHANGES TO THE RECORDS, WAS DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT AFTER SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the so-called “audit trail,” which indicates who accessed plaintiff’s medical records, where and when they were accessed and any changes made to the records (metadata), was discoverable in this medical malpractice action. The complaint alleged failure to properly treat plaintiff after surgery which led to infection and amputation:

The plaintiffs demonstrated, and Wyckoff [medical center] does not dispute, that an audit trail generally shows the sequence of events related to the use of a patient’s electronic medical records; i.e., who accessed the records, when and where the records were accessed, and changes made to the records … . Hospitals are required to maintain audit trails under federal and state law (see 45 CFR 164.312[b]; 10 NYCRR 405.10[c][4][v]). As argued by the plaintiffs, the requested audit trail was relevant to the allegations of negligence that underlie this medical malpractice action in that the audit trail would provide, or was reasonably likely to lead to, information bearing directly on the post-operative care that was provided to the injured plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ request was limited to the period immediately following the injured plaintiff’s surgery. The plaintiffs further demonstrated that such disclosure was also needed to assist preparation for trial by enabling their counsel to ascertain whether the patient records that were eventually provided to them were complete and unaltered … .

In response to the plaintiffs’ threshold showing, Wyckoff failed to demonstrate that the requested disclosure was improper or otherwise unwarranted. Although Wyckoff argued that the audit trail may contain information that would not be useful to the plaintiffs, it did not dispute that the audit trail would nevertheless contain information pertaining to the medical care that it provided to the injured plaintiff in the wake of his foot surgery. Vargas v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 02142, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

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