Madkins v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madkins v. State

82 A.D.3d 1174, 919 N.Y.2d 375

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1174 (Madkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Madkins v. State, 82 A.D.3d 1174, 919 N.Y.2d 375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the defendant’s loss of the fetal heart monitoring strips in this case left her prejudicially bereft of evidence to prosecute her malpractice claim. Rather, the medical record, which includes progress notes, some references to the fetal heart rate at certain points in the mother’s brief labor, and other relevant evidence, established that the claimant’s ability to pursue her claim was not fatally compromised so as to warrant the drastic sanction of striking the defendant’s answer (see Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C., [1175]*117580 AD3d 598 [2011]; Coleman v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 74 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2010]; Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d 566, 568 [2010]; cf. Baglio v St. John’s Queens Hosp., 303 AD2d 341, 342-343 [2003]). However, the defendant’s failure to preserve the fetal heart monitoring strips as required by regulation (see 10 NYCRR 405.10 [a] [4]), and the resulting prejudice to the claimant, warrants the imposition of the lesser sanction of an adverse inference charge to be given at trial (see e.g. Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C., 80 AD3d 598 [2011]; Shayovich v 800 Ocean Parkway Apt. Corp., 77 AD3d 814, 815-816 [2010]; Coleman v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 74 AD3d 1009, 1012 [2010]; Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d at 568).

In view of the foregoing, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion to compel the claimant to provide a certificate of merit pursuant to CPLR 3012-a. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the defendant’s loss of the fetal heart monitoring strips in this case left her prejudicially bereft of evidence to prosecute her malpractice claim. Rather, the medical record, which includes progress notes, some references to the fetal heart rate at certain points in the mother’s brief labor, and other relevant evidence, established that the claimant’s ability to pursue her claim was not fatally compromised so as to warrant the drastic sanction of striking the defendant’s answer (see Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C., [1175]*117580 AD3d 598 [2011]; Coleman v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 74 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2010]; Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d 566, 568 [2010]; cf. Baglio v St. John’s Queens Hosp., 303 AD2d 341, 342-343 [2003]). However, the defendant’s failure to preserve the fetal heart monitoring strips as required by regulation (see 10 NYCRR 405.10 [a] [4]), and the resulting prejudice to the claimant, warrants the imposition of the lesser sanction of an adverse inference charge to be given at trial (see e.g. Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C., 80 AD3d 598 [2011]; Shayovich v 800 Ocean Parkway Apt. Corp., 77 AD3d 814, 815-816 [2010]; Coleman v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 74 AD3d 1009, 1012 [2010]; Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d at 568).

In view of the foregoing, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion to compel the claimant to provide a certificate of merit pursuant to CPLR 3012-a. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1174, 919 N.Y.2d 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madkins-v-state-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack