![]() ![]() The provisions of the CPLR governing depositions are founded on the assumption that depositions will be conducted in person (see, e.g., CPLR 3110, 3113) however, the parties to a given action may stipulate to conduct a deposition remotely (see CPLR 3113). Prior to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the overwhelming majority of depositions taken in conjunction with civil actions pending in New York State courts were conducted in-person. Defendants Jopal and ArchCare Senior Life oppose plaintiff's motion for the reasons articulated by defendant Montefiore. At bottom, defendant Montefiore wants in-person depositions.ĭefendant Jopal Bronx, LLC (d/b/a Workmen's Circle Multicare Center) ("Jopal") cross-moves to compel plaintiff to serve an amended bill of particulars as to it, arguing (like defendant Montefiore) that the bill of particulars served by plaintiff was insufficient. With respect to plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to conduct the depositions remotely, defendant Montefiore maintains that conducting plaintiff's deposition remotely provides "the opportunity for plaintiff's counsel to inappropriately coach the witness, and limit defense counsel's ability to ascertain the demeanor and candor of the witness." Defendant Montefiore notes that the various New York State court and federal court decisions cited by plaintiff are not binding on this court. Moreover, plaintiff identifies a number of unreported trial court decisions and orders compelling remote depositions, as well as federal court decisions doing so.ĭefendant Montefiore Medical Center ("Montefiore") cross-moves to compel plaintiff to serve an amended bill of particulars as to it, arguing that the bill of particulars served by plaintiff was not sufficiently responsive to a number of demanded particulars (specifically, demand numbers 3, 6, 7, and 28-31), and that Montefiore could not adequately defend the action without a more detailed bill of particulars. ![]() Plaintiff argues that CPLR 3103 (the protective-order statute) authorizes the court to compel remote depositions under the unprecedented public health circumstances occasioned by the coronavirus pandemic, and that recent administrative orders issued by the Chief Administrative Judge strongly encourage parties to civil suits to conduct matters by remote platforms. Pointing to various e-mails sent by her counsel to defendants' attorneys, plaintiff contends that she attempted to schedule her remote deposition, but defendants declined to proceed with it. Plaintiff argues that depositions have not occurred, and that in-person depositions are not appropriate in light of the on-going coronavirus pandemic. ![]() Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to conduct depositions by remote video conferencing. Due to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, that conference did not take place, and depositions have not occurred. A discovery conference on Januyielded a so-ordered stipulation among the parties the dates for the various party depositions were to be set at the next discovery conference, which was scheduled for March 18, 2020. Plaintiff's deposition did not occur by that date. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence and medical malpractice, and under Public Health Law article 28.Ī preliminary conference was held on October 16, 2019, and the order generated at that conference stated that plaintiff's deposition was to occur on or before January 17, 2020. On February 28, 2019, plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her decedent. For the reasons that follow, the court compels the defendants to conduct the depositions in this action remotely, subject to any further protective order or orders the court may issue. Plaintiff's motion raises an issue with which New York State trial courts have been grappling since this past spring: whether to compel parties to conduct remote depositions. Arciero, Esq., Regenbaum Arciero McMillan & Burgess, P.C., New Windsor, NY, for defendant ArchCare Senior Life Charles, Esq., Sheeley LLP, New York, NY, for defendant Jopal Bronx, LLC (d/b/a Workmen's Circle Multicare Center) Widowki, Esq., Widowski Law Group, LLP, New York, NY, for defendant Montefiore Medical Center Umana, Esq., Sinel & Olesen, PLLC, New York, NY, for plaintiffĮsther S. Montefiore Medical Center, JOPAL BRONX, LLC, d/b/a WORKMEN'S CIRCLE MULTICARE CENTER and ARCHCARE SENIOR LIFE, Defendants. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.Įrica Rodriguez, as Administratrix of the Estate of EDELMIRO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |