You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department withheld decision and directed the People to provide defense counsel with certain trial exhibits counsel was unable to access prior to perfecting the appeal:

Defendant contends, among other things, that the People deprived him of an opportunity to develop an effective argument on appeal by failing to provide him with certain video and photographic exhibits that were introduced into evidence at trial in a format that he could readily view … . Specifically, defendant avers that, although the People provided him with copies of 14 DVDs introduced as exhibits at trial, he was unable to view the contents of exhibit Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 108.

Defendant has a “fundamental right to appellate review of a criminal conviction” … and, to that end, it is well-settled that the People “‘must provide a record of trial sufficient to enable a defendant to present reviewable issues on appeal'” … . Here, there is no dispute that the subject exhibits were admitted into evidence, were viewed by the juries at both of defendant’s trials and are now a part of the record from which defendant may prepare his appellate arguments and this Court may conduct meaningful appellate review. Based upon our own efforts to view these exhibits, we find defendant’s observation to have merit. People v Haggray, 2018 NY Slip Op 04036, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in an appeal by the People of a suppression ruling, determined the suppression motion should have been denied in its entirety. Defendant never made a motion to suppress information taken from his cell phone. Yet County Court apparently speculated that the police must have searched defendant’s cell phone before the Miranda warnings were given:

… [T]he detectives approached defendant outside his place of employment and asked him to accompany them to the police station. Defendant voluntarily agreed and they drove him to the station without placing him in handcuffs. The videotaped statement indicates that, during the ride and before entering the interview room, they engaged in general conversation regarding defendant’s background, education, employment and family life, but did not discuss the criminal investigation. Inside the interview room, defendant was initially not restrained. The detectives asked if he would like water and provided him a drink. Later, they obtained a cigarette and allowed him to smoke it, and permitted him to make a phone call. At the beginning of the conversation in the interview room, a detective administered Miranda warnings and defendant stated that he was willing to talk to them and answer questions. Defendant was not threatened or coerced during the interview.

County Court did not rely on these facts, but instead focused on what it deemed “the troubling and unavoidable issue that, prior to entering the interview room and prior to Miranda warnings, . . . defendant’s phone had already been seized by the police.” The court highlighted the People’s failure at the hearing to address this seizure of the phone even though, as discussed above, the People were not on notice that anything related to the phone was being challenged by defendant. The court chastised the People for failing to acknowledge or explain “the circumstances under which . . . defendant’s phone was seized and potentially searched, pre-Miranda.” The record contains no factual support for, and actually belies, the court’s speculative assertion that the phone was searched before Miranda warnings were administered, because the video shows that, when the detective eventually brought the phone into the interview room and obtained defendant’s consent to look at some of its features, defendant had to unlock the phone with either a password or swiping pattern. People v Moore, 2018 NY Slip Op 04042, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, PEOPLE’S APPEAL,  DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial two-justice dissent, determined the evidence did not support the serious physical injury element of assault first and reduced the conviction to attempted assault first. The victim was shot in the leg. The dissenters argued the serious physical injury element had been proven. The majority focused on weaknesses of the evidence of serious physical injury and found it deficient under a weight of the evidence analysis:

… [T]he weight of the evidence does not support a finding that the victim sustained a serious physical injury. Serious physical injury is defined as a “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” … . As to whether the victim sustained a physical injury that created a substantial risk of death, the victim testified that, following the shooting, he was in “miraculous pain,” he underwent two surgeries, his tibia bone was “shattered” and pins were inserted to hold the bones in place. The pins, however, were removed four months after their insertion, at which point the pain subsided. The victim then wore a cast on his leg for 1½ months. Although the victim’s injuries are by no means trivial, they fall short of constituting injuries that create a substantial risk of death. There was no evidence that the victim lost consciousness after being shot or that a vital organ was damaged. Nor was there any proof, lay or medical, indicating that the victim’s injuries caused a substantial risk of death or were life threatening … .

* * * … [A]lthough the victim’s testimony and the photographs show a significant injury immediately following the shooting, there was no corresponding proof regarding its long-term effects … . …​

As to whether the victim sustained a serious and protracted disfigurement, we note that the victim showed his scar to the jury. There was, however, no contemporaneous description of what the jury saw to demonstrate the extent of such scarring, nor can such extent be discerned from the photographs entered into evidence … . People v Marshall, 2018 NY Slip Op 04038, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/ASSAULT (SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ( UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))

,

WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the court should have conducted a searching inquiry into defendant’s representing himself when he indicated he wished to testify at the grand jury at his first and second appearances in court:

… [D]efendant appeared in City Court for arraignment on a felony complaint and a misdemeanor information charging him with the offenses for which he was later indicted. Defendant, as is relevant here, stated that he wished to represent himself and testify before the grand jury. He remained unrepresented at a second appearance three days later and reiterated his desire to appear before the grand jury. The indictment was handed up shortly thereafter, and it appears that the People disregarded defendant’s desire to testify before the grand jury because he failed to make a written demand as required … . …​

“[D]efendant’s indelible right to counsel . . . attached when the felony complaint against him was first filed” …  and, while he could waive that right and proceed pro se, the waiver would be invalid absent a “searching inquiry” by City Court to discern whether defendant understood and “appreciated the ‘dangers and disadvantages’ of” self-representation… . There was no inquiry conducted here, leaving the record silent as to whether “defendant ‘acted with full knowledge and appreciation of the panoply of constitutional protections that would be adversely affected by counsel’s inability to participate'” so as to constitute a valid waiver … . Defendant should therefore not have been permitted to proceed pro se … . It follows that defendant was deprived of an opportunity to consult with counsel — who could have assisted defendant in deciding whether to appear before the grand jury and made an effective demand to appear in the event he chose to do so — and this “deprivation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel requires the dismissal of the indictment” … . People v Trapani, 2018 NY Slip Op 04041, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/GRAND JURY ( WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel’s for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

Turning first to defendant’s contention regarding prospective juror No. 4 from round three, she indicated that she knew Ruth Crepet, a physician that the People intended to call as a witness, as Crepet was her primary care physician of 15 years. Although the juror stated that she had a preconceived notion that Crepet would be truthful, she indicated that she could be impartial and fair at trial in that regard. This juror also stated that her husband was the victim of a robbery and, because the person “got off,” she was “a little cynical” about the criminal justice system, but “would try” to be impartial and thought “that [she] could be.” When asked if she could find defendant guilty, this juror stated “yes, you bet.” …​

While it is not necessarily an issue that Crepet was the prospective juror’s doctor … , her general equivocality is problematic. “Equivocal, uncertain responses, including statements that a prospective juror will ‘try’ or ‘hope’ to be impartial, are insufficient in the absence of [other] ‘express and unequivocal’ declarations that the juror will put any preconceptions aside and render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence” … . Here, while some of the prospective juror’s responses were unequivocal, many were not, and, as such, her responses as a whole do not demonstrate that her opinion would not influence her verdict … . Therefore, further inquiry was needed and, in the absence of said inquiry, it was error for Supreme Court to deny defendant’s challenge for cause … . People v Horton, 2018 NY Slip Op 04040, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT)

COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the court did not adequately explain the rights defendant was giving up by pleading guilty:

During the plea proceedings, County Court engaged in an abbreviated colloquy during which it made only a passing reference to the rights that defendant was giving up by pleading guilty. Notably, the court did not mention the privilege against self-incrimination or advise defendant of his right to a jury trial. Nor did the court ascertain whether defendant had conferred with counsel regarding the trial-related rights that he was waiving or the constitutional consequences of his guilty plea. With no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea, the plea was invalid and must be vacated … . People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 04039, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department determined the court should have inquired into the reasons for defendant’s failure to appear at sentencing before sentencing him in absentia:

When defendant did not appear for sentencing on April 2, 2015, the court noted that defendant had been present for “each and every other occasion,” before issuing a bench warrant and adjourning sentencing to April 9, 2015. When defendant again failed to appear, his counsel represented that the only contact he had had with defendant was a conversation on April 1, 2015, when defendant informed counsel that he had additional doctors’ appointments to attend, and counsel advised him to appear in court for sentencing on April 2, 2015. There is no indication in the record that defendant was advised that sentencing was adjourned to April 9, 2015. The court was aware of defendant’s medical condition, which had required hospitalization in October 2014 and was the reason that sentencing was first adjourned from January 2015 to April 2, 2015. The court specifically observed that no explanation for defendant’s absence had been provided by defendant or his counsel but, nonetheless, made no inquiry on the record into the status of any efforts to locate defendant since April 2, when it had issued the bench warrant, before it proceeded to sentence him in absentia. In light of its failure to make any inquiry whatsoever into the reason for defendant’s absence, County Court erred when it sentenced defendant in absentia … . People v Sassenscheid, 2018 NY Slip Op 04037, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the complicated facts of this case nullified  a benefit that was expressly promised as inducement to a guilty plea. Defendant had pled guilty to burglaries in two counties (Schenectady and Albany) as a persistent felony offender. Both persistent felony offender guilty pleas were overturned. His subsequent plea was reversed in this case:

Defendant pleaded guilty here upon the understanding that the imposed sentence would run concurrently to the aggregate prison sentence of 16½ years to life imposed in Albany County. He was also aware that a higher aggregate sentence would be imposed in Albany County if he successfully challenged his status as a persistent violent felony offender, and Supreme Court promised that any resentence in this case would run concurrently to that increased sentence.

During the pendency of this appeal, this Court reversed the judgment of conviction in Albany County, vacated defendant’s guilty plea and remitted for further proceedings … . The sentencing exposure that prompted defendant’s concern about concurrent sentencing here accordingly dissolved and, indeed, he entered into a new plea arrangement in Albany County where he received, among other things, a much shorter prison term of six years. In short, the “reduction of the preexisting sentence [in Albany County] nullified a benefit that was expressly promised and was a material inducement to the guilty plea” here … . Inasmuch as “we cannot say that defendant would have foregone pretrial and trial rights and pleaded guilty” had he known that his guilty plea in Albany County would be vacated, his plea must also be vacated here … . People v Brewington, 2018 NY Slip Op 04035, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (PLEA AGREEMENTS, BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENTS (BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEAS (PLEA AGREEMENTS, BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether there was an oral contract for dock space for and storage of plaintiff’s boat at defendant marina:

… [P]laintiff submitted a copy of an invoice from defendant that itemized the charges for winter storage and spring launch and showed that no balance was due in April 2008. The invoice also acknowledged receipt of a $500 payment from plaintiff on April 14, 2008 for a monthly slip charge. Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit in which he averred that the $500 payment accepted by defendant is evidence that the parties entered into an oral agreement for rental of dock space for the 2008 boating season. The facts alleged in plaintiff’s affidavit are consistent with his deposition testimony, which was submitted by defendant, in which he claimed that he made an oral agreement with defendant’s employee. Plaintiff’s argument that the oral agreement was consistent with the parties’ prior dealings because he had entered into a written agreement for only one season during his long period of occupancy is corroborated by [defendant’s] allegation that “[o]ver the years[, plaintiff] refused to sign any license agreement.” When viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the nonmoving party … , plaintiff’s submissions are sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact regarding formation of an oral contract. Carroll v Rondout Yacht Basin, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04051, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACTS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT))

,

ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, announcing a new Third-Department rule governing expert witness disclosure in medical malpractice actions, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined plaintiffs are obligated to provide full disclosure of a prospective expert witness’s qualifications, even if the disclosure will identify the witness. Defendants may be entitled to a protective order prohibiting the intimidation or harassment of a witness whose identity has effectively been revealed by his or her qualifications:

Inasmuch as this state’s expert disclosure statute is already the most restrictive in the nation, there is no reason for this Court to continue to interpret the statute in a way that permits parties to severely limit the amount of information they provide regarding their expert witnesses.

Like the 2nd Department held in Thomas v Alleyne [302 AD2d 36], we conclude that our current standard is not only impractical, but contrary to the statutory language and “the salutary policy of encouraging full pretrial disclosure so as to advance the fundamental purpose of litigation, which is to ascertain the truth” … . Accordingly, we adopt that Court’s rule that parties in medical malpractice cases “will ordinarily be entitled to full disclosure of the qualifications of [an opponent’s] expert, [except for the expert’s name,] notwithstanding that such disclosure may permit such expert’s identification,” but a party may obtain a protective order under CPLR 3103 (a) by making a factual showing that there exists a reasonable probability, “under the special circumstances of a particular case, that a prospective expert medical witness would be subjected to intimidation or threats if his or her name were revealed before trial” … . Kanaly v DeMartino, 2018 NY Slip Op 04060, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT WITNESSES, DISCLOSURE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLOSURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT WITNESSES, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT WITNESSES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/QUALIFICATIONS (EXPERT WITNESSES, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))

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