Published on:

The complainant alleges he sustained injuries as a result of a dog bite

The complainant alleges he sustained injuries as a result of a dog bite that occurred in the second-floor apartment he rented in a private house owned by a couple. In a prior action, the complainant settled a claim against the couple in the sum of $155,000.00 arising out of the dog bite incident.

After the dog bite, the complainant was treated by the respondent physician. The complainant visited the respondent hospital’s emergency room. Subsequent thereto he was treated with a codefendant physician. It is alleged that the medical malpractice of the respondents was a substantial cause of the development of osteomyelitis by the complainant causing pain and restriction of motion of his right hand. Lost wages in the sum of $30,000.00 are also being claimed.

An examination before trial of the complainant was held at the law offices of the complainant’s attorney in lower Manhattan. During the deposition, the complainant’s attorney objected to numerous questions. As the deposition continued acrimony developed between the complainants and moving respondents’ attorneys. The attorney for moving respondents agreed to overnight a copy of the transcript to the complainant’s attorney so that the attorney would be able to review it and have the transcription in his possession for the court conference. The complainant’s attorney states that upon receipt of the transcript, his adversary chose to carefully and painstakingly index each and every portion of the complainants’ deposition so that he would be fully prepared to discuss the issues with the Court, without ever having overnighted a copy of the transcript to the complainant attorney’s office for review prior to the conference. In his reply affirmation, the respondents’ attorney apologized to the court for not overnighting the examination before trial transcript of the complainant prior to the conference. The Court is not impressed by his belated apology and observation that even if the transcript had been overnighted in a timely manner, it is highly unlikely that anything meaningful with regarding to rulings would have been accomplished.

An attorney shall not interrupt the deposition for the purpose of communicating with the deponent unless all parties consent or the communication is made for the purpose of determining whether the question should not be answered on the grounds set forth and, in such event, the reason for the communication shall be stated for the record succinctly and clearly.

Civil Practice Law and Rules provides for full disclosure of all matters material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. The provision has been liberally construed to require disclosure of any information or material reasonably related to the issues which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason.

Attorney for moving respondents raised questions about the date of the dog bite. The questions regarding the date of the dog bite should have been answered after the objection was made and without further comment by the complainant’s attorney. The landlord, at his deposition testified that the complainant told him that the dog bit him on May 21, 2006, not June 16, 2006. The landlady testified that the complainant told her the dog bite took place two weeks before she picked him up on June 23, 2006. The respondent movant attorney argues that if the dog bite occurred on June 9, 2006, and he first saw a physician on June 16, 2006, then the complainant may have self-treated himself for approximately a week before seeking medical attention.

The complainant has denied having a blog, Twitter account, Facebook or My Space problem. The request to have a computer expert review the complainant’s e-mail correspondence is denied. No foundation has been laid for such a request; nor has any legal authority been cited to warrant any such an intrusion in a dog bite case that has ripened into an action for alleged medical malpractice.

In every lawsuit, it is important that what every witness say is credible and truthful. Being dishonest could contribute in losing our case. When you are in the middle of a legal action because of your pet animal, a NY Dog Bite Attorney or a New York Dog Attack Lawyer can help you win your case. You can also consult a NY Injury Attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Contact Information