You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY.

NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s expert’s testimony. The “expert-evidence” notice indicated the expert would testify about the cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death but did not indicate the substance of the testimony. At trial the expert did not agree with the cause described in the autopsy report (pneumonia) and testified death was attributable to cardiac arrhythmia. The motion to strike argued the “expert notice” was deficient because it did not provide any detail about the expert’s opinion. Because the lack of detail was obvious pre-trial, the mid-trial objection was properly overruled:

Plaintiff made her motion mid-trial immediately prior to the expert’s testimony. Plaintiff argues that at the time of the expert exchange, she had no reason to object to the disclosure statement because the statement gave no indication that defendant would challenge plaintiff’s theory of decedent’s cause of death. Assuming defendant’s disclosure was deficient, such deficiency was readily apparent; the disclosure identified “causation” as a subject matter but did not provide any indication of a theory or basis for the expert’s opinion. This is not analogous to a situation in which a party’s disclosure was misleading or the trial testimony was inconsistent with the disclosure. Rather, the issue here was insufficiency.

The trial court’s ruling did not endorse the sufficiency of the statement but instead addressed the motion’s timeliness. The lower courts were entitled to determine, based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case, that the time to challenge the statement’s content had passed because the basis of the objection was readily apparent from the face of the disclosure statement and could have been raised — and potentially cured — before trial. Rivera v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06854, CtApp 10-20-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT EVIDENCE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)

, ,

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Court of Appeals determined evidence which was originally generated in electronic form was admissible under CPLR 4518 (a) and CPLR 4539 (b) applies only to documents originally in hard copy and subsequently scanned into digital form. The document in question was a record of testing of the simulator solution used during an alcohol breath test:

County Court correctly held that the applicable statute is CPLR 4518 (a), which was amended in 2002 (see L 2002, ch 136, § 1) to provide that an “electronic record . . . shall be admissible in a tangible exhibit that is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record” (CPLR 4518 [a]). The statute further provides that the court “may consider the method or manner by which the electronic record was stored, maintained or retrieved in determining whether the exhibit is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record,” but “[a]ll other circumstances of the making of the memorandum or record. . . may be proved to affect its weight,” and “shall not affect its admissibility” (id. [emphasis added]).

The 2002 amendment to CPLR 4518 (a) was adopted by the legislature upon the recommendation of the Chief Administrative Judge’s Advisory Committee on Civil Practice specifically because the Committee and the legislature concluded that CPLR 4539 (b) had no application to documents originally created in electronic form. People v Kangas, 2016 NY Slip Op 06857, CtApp 10-20-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)DWI (BREATH TEST,  ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/BREATH TEST (DWI, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)

PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion when it ruled two lawsuits joined for trial could be held in the county where the second of the two actions, as opposed to the first, was commenced:

“[W]here actions commenced in different counties have been consolidated [or joined for trial] pursuant to CPLR 602, the venue should be placed in the county where the first action was commenced, unless special circumstances are present, which decision is also addressed to the sound discretion of the court” … . Here, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in placing the venue of the joint trial in Queens County, since EMB [the defendants in the second suit] failed to establish the existence of special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the general rule … . Tieshmaker v EMB Contr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06819, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED)/VENUE (PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED)

,

DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO (COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion too complex for summary here (by Justice Tom), affirmed the dismissal of complaints stemming from the Madoff Ponzi scheme pursuant to the doctrine of in pari delicto (courts will not resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers).

In this case, plaintiff’s claims are precluded under the doctrine of in pari delicto. As the funds’ bankruptcy trustee, plaintiff stands in the funds’ shoes, and is subject to a defense based on the in pari delicto doctrine to the same extent as the funds … . Thus, the doctrine “prevents the trustee from recovering in tort if the corporation, acting through authorized employees in their official capacities, participated in the tort” … .

While a claim of in pari delicto sometimes requires factual development and is therefore not amenable to dismissal at the pleading stage … , the doctrine can apply on a motion to dismiss in an appropriate case … , such as where its application is “plain on the face of the pleadings” … . New Greenwich Litig. Trustee, LLC v Citco Fund Servs. (Europe) B.V., 2016 NY Slip Op 06796, 1st Dept 10-18-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)/CORPORATION LAW (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)/IN PAR DELICTO (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)/MADOFF PONZI SCHEME (DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO, COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS)

, ,

DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should have been applied to deny the NYC Transit Authority’s (NYCTA’s) motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve a notice of claim. The notice of claim had been timely served on the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and a 50-h hearing had been held:

Although the MTA and NYCTA share an affiliation, they are separate entities … . Thus, service of a notice of claim upon the MTA does not satisfy the condition precedent of serving a notice of claim upon the NYCTA … . However, a municipal corporation may be equitably estopped from asserting lack of notice of claim when it has wrongfully or negligently engaged in conduct that misled or discouraged a party from serving a timely notice of claim or making a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party … . “By applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel to notice of claim situations, the courts may insure that statutes like section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, do not become a trap to catch the unwary or the ignorant'” … .  Konner v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 06683, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPLA LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)

, ,

NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined a broad choice of law provision in a contract required the application of New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202). Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the law of the Province of Ontario Canada. The statute of limitations for breach of contract under Ontario law is two years. New York’s statute of limitations is six years. Because, under the facts, New York’s borrowing statute applies and therefore the Ontario statute of limitations controls, the action is untimely:

The borrowing statute is itself a part of New York’s procedural law and is a statute of limitations in its own right, existing as a separate procedural rule within the rules of our domestic civil practice, addressing limitations of time … . Thus, applying the borrowing statute is perfectly consistent with a broad choice-of-law contract clause that requires New York procedural rules to apply to the parties’ disputes. 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v Samsung C&T Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06671, 1st Dept 10-11-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/CONTRACT LAW (CHOICE OF LAW, NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/CORPORATION LAW (CHOICE OF LAW CONTRACTUAL PROVISION, NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/BORROWING STATUTE (NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACT, NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY)

,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have sanctioned plaintiff for disregarding a court order and submitted a materially false affidavit:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a), a court may award to any party fees and costs resulting from frivolous conduct, i.e., conduct that is “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; . . . [or that is] undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or . . . asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Factors to consider in determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous include “the circumstances under which the conduct took place,” and whether “the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party” (id.).

Here, plaintiff’s conduct was clearly frivolous inasmuch as she submitted an affidavit that disregarded a court order and, in response to a second order, she submitted a second affidavit that contained a material falsehood. When that conduct is viewed along with plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands and other orders, we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse to sanction plaintiff. Place v Chaffee-Sardinia Volunteer Fire Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06588, 4th Dept 10-7-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT)/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT)/SANCTIONS (PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT)

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS.

The Second Department, although agreeing with Supreme Court that aspects the damages award in this medical malpractice case were excessive, determined Supreme Court did not have the power to simply reduce the damages amounts. Rather, Supreme Court should have granted the motion to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial unless the parties stipulate to the reduced damages:

… [I]t was procedurally improper for the Supreme Court to enter a judgment reducing the awards for future medical care, future medications, future physical and occupational therapy from age 21, future speech therapy from age 21, future medical equipment, future medical supplies, future loss of earning capacity, past pain and suffering, and future pain and suffering without granting a new trial on those issues unless the plaintiffs stipulated to reduce the verdict … . Reilly v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06485, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)

, , ,

JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action as untimely was properly denied. The facts, which concern the sale of interests in a Russian oil company, are too complex to summarize here. The court held that the complaint alleged a breach of a 2001 joint venture investment agreement based upon an alleged failure to pay plaintiff a portion of sale proceeds in 2013, making the 2014 lawsuit timely:

 

… [T]he motion court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of their joint venture agreement and the 2001 Agreement, and for breach of defendants’ fiduciary duty. It held that although there was no written investment agreement signed by both defendants … plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the existence of a valid oral agreement by alleging that the parties agreed to the central terms of the unsigned investment agreement. It further held that the oral agreement was not void under the statute of frauds because it was capable of being performed within one year, and because the statute of frauds is generally inapplicable to joint ventures. It also rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s breach of contract and breach of joint venture claims were time barred, reasoning that the claimed breach of the 2001 Agreement was defendants’ failure to pay plaintiff his percentage share of the 2013 … sale proceeds. * * *

This action was commenced within both limitations periods, because defendants “had a recurring obligation to pay plaintiff his . . . share of the profits generated by” the joint venture. … . A new claim accrued when the obligation to do so was allegedly breached in 2013. Lebedev v Blavatnik, 2016 NY Slip Op 06463, 1st Dept 10-4-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CONTRACT LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CORPORATION LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/JOINT VENTURES (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)

, , ,

EXPERT’S INABILITY TO QUANTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DIMINISHED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME DID NOT JUSTIFY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (on the issue of causation) should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the delay in diagnosing or failure to diagnose plaintiff’s decedent’s condition diminished plaintiff’s decedent’s chance of a better outcome. Plaintiff’s expert’s inability to quantify the extent to which defendants’ conduct diminished the chance of a better outcome did not render the proof insufficient:

In order to establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care “was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury” (PJI 2:70…). Where, as here, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently failed or delayed in diagnosing and treating a condition, a finding that the negligence was a proximate cause of an injury to the patient may be predicated on the theory that the defendant thereby “diminished [the patient’s] chance of a better outcome,” in this case, survival … . In that instance, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care … . However, “[a] plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome . . . , as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome’ … . Clune v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 06331, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

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