You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Befeler) was a general surgeon and did not assert any knowledge of gastroenterology. His affidavit was not sufficient to raise a question of fact in the face of plaintiff’s gastroenterology experts:

​

Here, there is no indication that Dr. Befeler possessed the requisite background and knowledge to furnish a reliable opinion concerning the practice of gastroenterology … . While a gastroenterologist may well be qualified to render an opinion on a surgical procedure involving the gastrointestinal system, it cannot be said that a general surgeon is qualified to opine on any specialty simply because the specialist may eventually refer the patient for surgery. Indeed, Dr. Befeler averred only that his conclusion that both doctors “were negligent in failing to follow standard and accepted medical procedures” was based upon his “review of the above records, [his] education, years of training, and [his] forty year experience in the field of General Surgery.” Nowhere did the doctor set forth any experience in gastroenterology or detail the standard of care for that specialty. Bartolacci-Meir v Sassoon, 2017 NY Slip Op 03040, 1st Dept 4-20-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)

, ,

NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff raised a new theory in response to the summary judgment motion. The First Department held that the new theory could not be entertained by searching the record and therefore could not support the denial of summary judgment or an amended bill of particulars:

​

Once the defendants met their burden for summary judgment, plaintiff was obligated to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing with medical evidence demonstrating that the defendants departed from accepted medical practice … . Here, plaintiff failed to address the opinions of defendants’ experts or defendants’ prima facie showing that the result from the complicated, extensive double jaw surgery was anything but a reasonable result. Thus, there was no basis to preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants … . Instead, plaintiff proffered a new theory, based on the report of an expert otolaryngologist, who opined that Dr. Behrman had failed to take into account plaintiff’s primary immune deficiency in planning the surgery, that he should have initially consulted with an immunologist who would have performed testing before surgery, and that he failed to refer plaintiff after surgery to an ENT doctor, who would have consulted with an immunologist. Plaintiff’s expert asserted that these failures led to the development of an infection, which caused plaintiff’s hearing loss, numbness, and teeth misalignment.

It is axiomatic that a plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion that made out a prima facie case by merely asserting, without more, a new theory of liability for the first time in the opposition papers … . Since plaintiff’s opposition papers were insufficient absent this new theory of recovery, defendants’ summary judgment motion should have been granted … . Biondi v Behrman, 2017 NY Slip Op 03039, 1st Dept 4-20-17

NEGLIGENCE (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation was properly denied. A notice of claim cannot be amended by adding a new injury theory of liability:

​

A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability … . Here, the proposed amendments to the notice of claim asserted a new injury and added a new theory of liability … . These amendments were not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . Castillo v Kings County Hosp. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 02962, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY)

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded to defendant podiatrist in this malpractice action. The defendant’s expert did not address the precise claims of malpractice made in the pleadings and did not demonstrate plaintiffs gave informed consent to the procedure. On the issue of informed consent, the court wrote:

​

To succeed on a cause of action to recover damages for podiatric malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the failure of the podiatric practitioner providing the professional treatment or diagnosis to disclose to the patient the alternatives thereto and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved that a reasonable podiatric practitioner under similar circumstances would have disclosed, in a manner permitting the patient to make a knowledgeable evaluation, and (2) that a reasonably prudent person in the patient’s position would not have undergone the treatment or diagnosis if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury or condition for which recovery is sought … . Here, the plaintiffs’ deposition testimony indicates that they were not fully advised of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the surgical procedure. Further, the generic consent form signed by the infant plaintiff’s mother did not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it did not disclose the risks specific to the surgical procedure performed, and the defendants’ expert failed to aver that the consent form complied with the prevailing standard for such disclosures applicable to reasonable podiatrists performing the same kind of surgery ,,, , Parrilla v Saphire, 2017 NY Slip Op 02803, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED)/INFORMED CONSENT  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, REQUIREMENTS FOR A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED)

, ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE.

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff properly amended his bill of particulars as of right prior to the filing of the note of issue, despite labeling the document a “supplemental” bill of particulars. The amended bill of particulars added the failure to diagnose appendicitis as a basis for the lawsuit:

The defendant’s contentions regarding the plaintiff’s delay in amending his bill of particulars are misplaced. While it is true that “once discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, [a] party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances'” … , no such showing is required where a bill of particulars is amended as of right before the note of issue and certificate of readiness have been filed. The as-of-right amendment of a bill of particulars has been appropriately compared to the as-of-right amendment of a pleading: “Presumably this amendment [pursuant to CPLR 3042(b)] can make any change in the bill, just as an amendment as of course can make any change in a pleading under CPLR 3025(a). But the latter is restricted in time to the outset of the action while CPLR 3042(b) keeps the bill’s amendment time open during the whole pre-note of issue period” … . Mackauer v Parikh, 2017 NY Slip Op 01847, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE)

,

CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined the certificate of merit filed in this medical malpractice action was inadequate. The complaint alleged malpractice by a surgeon. The certificate was based on the affidavit of plaintiff’s (Calcagno’s) physical therapist:

A certificate of merit “merely ensures that counsel has satisfied himself or herself that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of an action” … . The statute requires counsel to submit a certificate of merit declaring that he or she has consulted with at least one licensed physician who is knowledgeable regarding the relevant issues in the action, has reviewed the facts of the case, and has thus concluded that such a reasonable basis exists … .

We agree with Supreme Court that the certificate proffered by plaintiffs is inadequate. The allegations of malpractice arise from defendants’ diagnosis and surgical treatment, and the certificate of merit is based upon an affidavit of Calcagno’s physical therapist, who opined, “as a physical therapist,” that defendants’ actions were “departures from good and accepted medical practice.” However, by definition, a physical therapist cannot diagnose and is incompetent to attest to the standard of care applicable to physicians and surgeons … . Moreover, we find no merit in plaintiffs’ contention that the certificate of merit should be deemed adequate, as it was also based on certain medical reports, Calcagno’s testimony, and the pleadings. Review of these documents, standing alone, cannot suffice. Expert analysis is required to establish whether there was any departure from established standards of care, and whether any such departure was the proximate cause of injury to Calcagno … . Calcagno v Orthopedic Assoc. of Dutchess County, PC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01616, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)/CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this psychiatric malpractice case should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ expert found fault in, inter alia, defendants’ failure to document suicide assessments. Plaintiffs’ decedent committed suicide shortly after the defendant psychiatrists, Roberts and Decker, saw her:

Plaintiffs submitted the factually specific affidavit of a psychiatrist who, relying upon the foregoing, opined that Roberts deviated from the minimum standard of care in failing to document a proper suicide risk assessment and then discharging decedent without ensuring that she obtain psychotherapy and medication management within two days … . * * *

Plaintiffs’ expert psychiatrist opined that Decker fell short of the minimum standard of care by failing to properly conduct and document a suicide risk assessment of decedent, who was experiencing triggering anxiety and untreated depression. The psychiatrist further opined that Decker departed from the minimum standard of care in placing medication adjustment and psychotherapy on hold in the expectation that a “severely compromised” person would provide more information on an inpatient treatment facility that she was curious about. Tkacheff v Roberts, 2017 NY Slip Op 01429, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/PSYCHIATRISTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/SUICIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)

, ,

SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have imposed sanctions on defendants in this medical malpractice action. The action was premised on the failure of a suture which had to be repaired by a subsequent surgery. The suture at issue was thrown away at the time of the second surgery. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the defendants threw away the suture with a culpable state of mind:

“A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind,’ and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense'” … . Where evidence has been intentionally or willfully destroyed, its relevance is presumed … . However, where evidence has been destroyed negligently, the party seeking spoliation sanctions must establish that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense … . * * *

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions against the defendants for the wilful spoilation and destruction of evidence, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants were obligated to preserve the broken suture at the time of its destruction, that the suture was destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” and/or that the destroyed suture was relevant to the plaintiff’s claim … . In any event, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were on notice that the suture might be needed for future litigation … . Golan v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01342, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)/SPOLIATION (SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. The dissent found the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions too speculative to raise a question of fact. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

In sum, defendants submitted expert affirmations that established prima facie that they did not depart from good and accepted medical practice or that any such departure was not a proximate cause of [plaintiff’s]  injuries … . In opposition, plaintiffs submitted expert opinions that raised issues of fact as to the following alleged departures: the premature release of [plaintiff] from postanesthesia care unit, the failure to identify and treat his overdose or adverse reaction to morphine, and the failure to timely respond to his cardiorespiratory arrest … . Severino v Weller, 2017 NY Slip Op 01325, 1st Dept 2-21-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/EVIDENCE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

, , ,

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined defendants’ answers in this medical malpractice action should have been struck because of the failure to turn over the names of defendants’ employees and failure to obey court orders during discovery:

The Supreme Court properly inferred the willful and contumacious character of the defendants’ conduct from their repeated failures over an extended period of time, without an adequate excuse, to comply with the plaintiff’s discovery demands and the court’s discovery orders … . This conduct included: (1) misrepresenting that the surgical booker Marcia Barnaby was no longer employed by the Hospital; (2) failing to disclose Anthony Pastor as a surgical booker; and (3) failing to timely and fully comply with the court’s order to produce an affidavit from Schiff in the form required by the court. “[P]arties, where necessary, will be held responsible for the failure of their lawyers to meet court-ordered deadlines and provide meaningful responses to discovery demands” … . * * *

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we find that the imposition of monetary sanctions was insufficient to punish the defendants and their counsel for their willful and contumacious conduct in failing to timely and fully respond to discovery demands and court orders. Lucas v Stam, 2017 NY Slip Op 01190, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/NEGLIGENCE (DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/ATTORNEYS (NEGLIGENCE, DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)

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