Ward v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Ward v City of New York 2022 NY Slip Op 33039(U) September 9, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 400564/2013 Judge: Erika M. Edwards Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 400564/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. ERIKA M. EDWARDS 10M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X JANE WARD, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 400564/2013 04/22/2022 007 MOTION SEQ. NO. - V - THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION, BELLEVUE HOSPITAL CENTER, CARLINE DREWES-PESSEL, M.D., MING TSAI, M.D., JUDITA B. BAUTISTA, M.D., MARIE WERNER, M.D., ALLISON WEBB, M.D., DEBORAH B. DYSON, RPA, and John Doe and Jane Doe 1 through 6 other unknown and unnamed defendants, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 were read on this motion to/for REN EW/REARGU E/RESETTLE/RECONSI DER Upon the foregoing documents, the court denies Plaintiff Jane Ward's ("Plaintiff') motion to reargue Plaintiff's prior motion to compel Defendants Ming Tsai, M.D. ("Dr. Tsai") and Judita B. Bautista, M.D. ("Dr. Bautista") to answer questions that they were directed not to answer at their previous depositions and upon reargument, for continued depositions and additional relief This matter involves Plaintiff's allegations of medical malpractice in 2011, for Defendants The City of New York's, The New York City Health and Hospital Corporation's, Bellevue Hospital Center's, Carline Drewes-Pessel, M.D. 's, Dr. Tsai' s, Dr. Bautista' s, Marie Werner, M.D.'s, Allison Webb, M.D.'s and Deborah B. Dyson, RPA's (collectively, "Defendants") alleged negligence in their care and treatment of Plaintiff regarding her vaginal hysterectomy and cystoscopy for menorrhagia and symptomatic uterus fibroids. 400564/2013 WARD, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 007 [* 1] Page 1 of4 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 400564/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 Plaintiff previously moved under motion sequence 006 to direct Drs. Tsai and Bautista to answer the questions which they were directed not to answer and to re-depose them. In a Decision and Order, dated March 22, 2021, the court denied Plaintiff's motion in its entirety. The court found such additional depositions to be unnecessary and determined that Plaintiff's counsel's questions were palpably improper and argumentative at times, which warranted objections by defense counsel. Plaintiff now moves to reargue Plaintiff's prior motion to compel Defendants Drs. Tsai and Bautista to answer questions that they were directed not to answer at their previous depositions and upon reargument, for an order directing them to appear and answer such questions and related questions, for a continuation of Dr. Tsai's deposition and for sanctions, costs and additional relief as the court deems proper. Plaintiff argues in substance that the court overlooked or misapprehended numerous facts regarding Dr. Tsai, including that Dr. Tsai' s deposition was not complete, that Plaintiff is entitled to a continuation of his deposition until completion, that he was Plaintiff's attending physician, the Chief of Defendant Bellevue Hospital Center's OBGYN department, and a corporate witness and Plaintiff argues that the questions posed were appropriate and should have been answered. Plaintiff further argues in substance that the court overlooked or misapprehended numerous facts related to Dr. Bautista' s deposition, that the questions asked were not improper and that they should have been answered. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the court overlooked or misapprehended the law regarding discovery, depositions and objections to alleged improper questions at a deposition. Plaintiff also argues that Drs. Tsai and Bautista failed to demonstrate that they would be significantly prejudiced if they were instructed to answer the questions. 400564/2013 WARD, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 007 [* 2] Page 2 of 4 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 400564/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 Defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation s/h/a The New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, Bellevue Hospital Center, Dr. Tsai and Dr. Bautista oppose the motion and argue in substance that the court did not overlook or misapprehend any issue of fact or law. They argue that the court correctly denied Plaintiff's motion to compel Drs. Tsai and Bautista to return for further depositions and that such decision should not be disturbed on reargument. Defendants further argue that Dr. Tsai' s name was erroneously listed as the attending physician and other designations and the evidence clearly demonstrated that he had no involvement in Plaintiff's care. Additionally, Defendants argue in substance that the questions were improper and many were not material and necessary or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence related to the material issues in this case. Therefore, Defendants maintain that their objections were warranted and proper. Pursuant to CPLR 222l(d)(2), a motion for leave to reargue is left to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted only where the moving party contends that an issue of law or fact had been overlooked or misapprehended by the court when deciding the original motion (CPLR §222l[d][2]). It is not designed to provide the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided by the court or to present new evidence or different arguments than previously raised (William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [l st Dept 1992] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]). Here, the court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the court misapprehended or overlooked an issue of law or fact in its previous decision denying Plaintiff's motion. Therefore, the court denies Plaintiff's motion to reargue. In the alternative, even if Plaintiff had demonstrated that reargument was warranted, then the court would still deny the motion on reargument because the court's decision demonstrated 400564/2013 WARD, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 007 [* 3] Page 3 of 4 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 400564/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 that the court did not misapprehend or overlook an issue of fact or law. In its decision, the court accurately set forth the law pertaining to disclosure, depositions and objections to questions and answers at depositions. Although the court did not address each question specifically, it provided several examples of questions, it determined that Plaintiffs counsel's questions were improper for various reasons and ruled that Defense counsel's objections were warranted. Therefore, the court properly determined that additional depositions of Dr. Tsai and Dr. Bautista would be unnecessary. Here, the court finds Plaintiffs arguments to the contrary to be unpersuasive. The court has considered any additional arguments raised by the parties not specifically addressed herein and the court denies any additional requests for relief not expressly granted herein. As such, it is hereby ORDERED that the court denies Plaintiff Jane Ward's motion to reargue the court's previous decision. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court. 9/9/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED SETTLE ORDER GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 400564/2013 WARD, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 007 [* 4] 8 ERIKA M. EDWARDS, J.S.C. FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT • • OTHER REFERENCE Page 4 of 4 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.