Carmody v. New York University

S.D. New York

Carmody v. New York University

DecidedMarch 21, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-08186

StatusUnknown

This text of Carmody v. New York University (Carmody v. New York University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carmody v. New York University, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X KRISTIN A. CARMODY, M.D., M.H.P.E., Plaintiff, 21-CV-8186 (VF) -against- ORDER NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, et al, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge At ECF Nos. 171, 172, and 199, Defendants sought to preclude Plaintiff from offering into evidence at trial certain text messages and e-mails. As discussed at the conference on March 13, William Chiang will be testifying at trial. The e-mail from Dr. Woo (see ECF No. 172-1 at 11)is inadmissible hearsay. See Mar. 13, 2024 Tr. (“Tr.”) at 35. The text message between Dr. Carmody and Dr. Jordan Swartz (see ECF No. 172-1 at 2-5) is admissible under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D); see also Henry v. Lucky Strike Entertainment, LLC, 2013 WL 4710488, at *4-6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2013); Chen v. Shanghai Café Deluxe, Inc., 2019 WL 1447082, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2019); Howe v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 461, 464-65 (2d Cir. 1988). Dr. Swartz was employed by NYU as an attending physician, and he was speaking about conduct that he and other attending physicians engaged in at the hospital during the course of their employment. Dr. Swartz’s statement about his job duties, which was made during the course of his employment, is a party admission even though he was not a supervisor or decisionmaker. As such, the two text messages at ECF No. 172-1 at 4 discussing “professional misconduct” as “conduct that we all do” (Dr. Carmody’s text and Dr. Swartz’s response) are admissible. The other portions of the text message exchange between Dr. Swartz and Dr. Carmody are inadmissible hearsay. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York March 21, 2024 \ \) \\ WD VALERIE FIGUEREDO United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X KRISTIN A. CARMODY, M.D., M.H.P.E., Plaintiff, 21-CV-8186 (VF) -against- ORDER NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, et al, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge At ECF Nos. 171, 172, and 199, Defendants sought to preclude Plaintiff from offering into evidence at trial certain text messages and e-mails. As discussed at the conference on March 13, William Chiang will be testifying at trial. The e-mail from Dr. Woo (see ECF No. 172-1 at 11)is inadmissible hearsay. See Mar. 13, 2024 Tr. (“Tr.”) at 35. The text message between Dr. Carmody and Dr. Jordan Swartz (see ECF No. 172-1 at 2-5) is admissible under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D); see also Henry v. Lucky Strike Entertainment, LLC, 2013 WL 4710488, at *4-6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2013); Chen v. Shanghai Café Deluxe, Inc., 2019 WL 1447082, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2019); Howe v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 461, 464-65 (2d Cir. 1988). Dr. Swartz was employed by NYU as an attending physician, and he was speaking about conduct that he and other attending physicians engaged in at the hospital during the course of their employment. Dr. Swartz’s statement about his job duties, which was made during the course of his employment, is a party admission even though he was not a supervisor or decisionmaker. As such, the two text messages at ECF No. 172-1 at 4 discussing “professional misconduct” as “conduct that we all do” (Dr. Carmody’s text and Dr. Swartz’s response) are admissible. The other portions of the text message exchange between Dr. Swartz and Dr. Carmody are inadmissible hearsay. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York March 21, 2024 \ \) \\ WD VALERIE FIGUEREDO United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carmody v. New York University, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmody-v-new-york-university-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack