Comments on Recent Cases: April 2023

Image credit: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_US_President_Donald_Trump_pleads_not_guilty_to_34_felony_charges_in_Manhattan?dpl_id=2969244#/media/File:Trump_indictment_outside_courthouse_51789.png

Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.

Court Affirms Negative Inference From Defendant’s Destruction of Surveillance Video

The American litigation system is famous for requiring parties to preserve and disclose evidence to their adversaries. Many people think that they can get around this requirement by destroying evidence, but the courts punish parties that try.

For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Brooklyn, a plaintiff sued an event venue for injuries she sustained in an accident there. The venue had a surveillance video of the accident and deleted it. The plaintiff asked the court to assume that the video supported its claims and the court agreed. It held that, even though the lawsuit had not yet begun at the time the venue destroyed the video, and even if the deletion was not intentional, it should have known the video was important to the dispute and taken care to preserve it.

Decisions like this illustrate the need for parties to preserve evidence, both good and bad, and before and after the start of a lawsuit.

Court Vacates Trial Judgment Due to Lack of Causation

In litigation, a plaintiff often must prove that the defendant did something wrong.  But that may not be enough; the plaintiff may also need to show that the defendant’s misconduct actually caused the plaintiff’s harm.  Failing to make this causal connection may cause a court to dismiss a case.

For example, in a recent decision, the state appellate court in Manhattan recently considered a motion made after a trial.  At the trial, the plaintiff patient showed the defendant doctor wrote that she had no abnormalities on a radiology report, when she really had a nearly bursting appendix.  The jury sided with the plaintiff, but the appeals court vacated the judgment because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the defendant’s report caused the plaintiff’s injuries since the plaintiff’s other doctor testified that she did not rely on the report.

Cases like this illustrate how important it is for plaintiffs to allege and provide causation.

Court Refuses to Vacate Arbitration Award Despite Arbitrator’s Claimed Conflict of Interest

Courts are often reluctant to second guess an arbitrator’s decision (although they do on rare occasions).  So when people arbitrate their claims, there may not be a chance to ask a court for a do-over.  This may be true even when there are conflicts of interest.

For example, in a recent decision before the state appellate court in Manhattan, a party asked the court to void an arbitration award and require the parties to arbitrate their claims again.  It did so because the arbitrator was actually working for one of the parties in an unrelated matter, and so there was a conflict of interest.  But the court held that the party waived the conflict of interest argument because the party’s lawyer knew about the conflict and didn’t do anything about it during the arbitration.

Cases like this illustrate how hard it is to appeal an arbitration ruling in court.

Court Denies Summary Judgment to Former Owner of Premises for Personal Injury

A major issue that parties litigate before trial is whether the plaintiff has sued the correct defendant.  In litigation, it is not enough that a plaintiff has a legitimate claim.  The defendant must be liable for the plaintiff’s damages.  And defendants are often surprised that a court will hold them liable when it appears that someone else would be more appropriate.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sued the former owner of an apartment for an injury sustained there.  That defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the current owner, and not the former owner, should be, liable if anyone.  But the Court refused to dismiss the claim against it since the former owner could be liable if it “affirmatively created the dangerous condition.”

Decisions like this illustrate the arguments defendants make, and that courts may reject, about who is liable for claims.