Xiao Wen Zhen v New York City Dept. of Educ.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Xiao Wen Zhen v New York City Dept. of Educ. 2023 NY Slip Op 31509(U) May 4, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151491/2019 Judge: Nicholas W. Moyne 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. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 YORK SUPREME COURT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW NEW YORK THE STATE SUPREME NEW YORK COUNTY YORK COUNTY NEW PRESENT: PRESENT: PART 52 PART HON. HON. NICHOLAS NICHOLAS W. MOYNE MOYNE ---------------Justice Justice ----------------------X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X XIAO ZHEN, D. L., WEN ZHEN, XIAO WEN INDEX INDEX NO. MOTION DATE DATE MOTION Plaintiff, Plaintiff, 151491/2019 151491/2019 12/23/2022 12/23/2022 0_0_1_ _ MOTION SEQ. SEQ. NO. _ _ _001 MOTION V -- v- NEWYORK DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OF EDUCATION, CITY DEPARTMENT YORK CITY NEW YORK, OF NEW BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NEWYORK, CITY OF THE CITY OF THE OF EDUCATION BOARD THE NEWYORK, NEW EXPLORATIONS EXPLORATIONS INTO INTO YORK, NEW OF NEW CITY OF THE CITY SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE, MATH HIGH TECHNOLOGY & MATH SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY DECISION + ORDER ORDER ON DECISION MOTION MOTION Defendant. Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X ----------------------X 22, 21, 22, 20, 21, 19, 20, 18, 19, The listed by NYSCEF NYSCEF document number (Motion (Motion 001) 18, document number documents, listed e-filed documents, following e-filed The following 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, 35,36, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 32,33, 34, 35,36, 51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59 51,52, 53, 54, 55,56, 57, 58, 59 JUDGMENT-SUMMARY JUDGMENT-SUMMARY to/for this motion were motion to/for were read on this Upon documents, it is foregoing documents, Upon the foregoing This is an action action to recover recover for personal injuries injuries allegedly allegedly sustained sustained by the then then for personal This time of the time At the 11-year-old infant-plaintiff infant-plaintiff D.L. on the afternoon of of December December 12, 2017. 2017. At of the afternoon 11-year-old th grade the accident, New Explorations Explorations Into Science, Science, attending New student attending grade student was a 7th accident, D.L. was slipped and fell that he slipped alleged that Technology + Math Math High High School when it is alleged ("NEST+M") when School ("NEST Technology+ snow and ice during recess period period in the Plaintiff, courtyard. Plaintiff, school's courtyard. the school's supervised recess during a supervised on snow Xiao Zhen as parent parent and guardian guardian of infant infant plaintiff plaintiff D.L., and individually, individually, has Wen Zhen Xiao Wen of negligent alleged a claim claim of negligence based based on a dangerous condition and a claim claim of negligent dangerous condition of negligence alleged supervision. supervision. judgment on summary judgment partial summary Plaintiffs now now move move pursuant pursuant to CPLR for partial 3212, for § 3212, CPLR S Plaintiffs issue of liability liability against against defendants defendants The The City City of of New New York, Board of of Education Education of of the the York, Board the issue OF CITY DEPARTMENT 151491/2019 ZHEN, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF YORK CITY vs. NEW WEN VS. XIAO WEN ZHEN, XIAO 151491/2019 Motion No. No. 001 Motion [* 1] 1 of 8 Page 1 of 8 Page INDEX NO. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 New York, New York City Department Department of Education, ("DOE" ("DOE" or of Education, York City York, and New of New City of "defendants") "defendants").. 202.21 (e) to § 202.21 DOE cross-moves, NYCRR 9 pursuant to 22 NYCRR order pursuant seeking an order cross-moves, seeking DOE § 3124, to vacate plaintiffs' Note Note of of Issue Issue or in the alternative, alternative, pursuant pursuant to CPLR CPLR 93124, vacate the plaintiffs' compel plaintiff plaintiff to exchange exchange outstanding outstanding HIPAA HIPAA Authorizations, appear for further for a further Authorizations, appear compel denying plaintiffs' and denying deposition Independent Medical Medical Examination Examination ("IME"), ("IME"), and plaintiffs' motion motion deposition and Independent for liability. judgment on liability. summary judgment for summary warranted. not warranted. Plaintiffs' Note Note of Issue will not discovery is not further discovery vacated, and further not be vacated, of Issue Plaintiffs' Defendants contend contend that that service service of the Supplemental Supplemental Bill of of Particulars Particulars warrants warrants Defendants vacating Note of of Issue Issue ("NOi") ("NO I") to allow allow further discovery, pursuant pursuant to 22 NYCRR NYCRR § 9 further discovery, vacating the Note entitled they are entitled vacate, they 202.21(e). Defendants further declines to vacate, court declines the court that if the allege that further allege 202.21(e). Defendants to post-note post-note of issue discovery plaintiffs' response, response, pursuant pursuant to compel plaintiffs' seek to compel discovery and seek of issue CPLR § 93124. 3124. CPLR further Plaintiffs oppose oppose the the motion, motion, alleging alleging that discovery is complete complete and no further that discovery Plaintiffs entirely on was based discovery is needed needed as the Supplemental Bill of Particulars was based entirely of Particulars the Supplemental discovery AD2d 232 AD2d discovery possession (see Pauling Glickman, 232 Pauling v Glickman, defendants' possession within defendants' already within discovery already continuing respect to continuing with respect 465, 466 Dept 1996] 1996] [to supplement particulars with of particulars supplement a bill of 466 [2d Dept damages, continuing continuing damages damages must must be the anticipated anticipated sequalae sequalae of of the the original original injuries injuries damages, theories or new supplemental bill must must not not set set forth any new new legal legal theories new injuries]). injuries]). forth any and the supplemental case is not the case ground the the ground A party party may may move move to vacate note of issue upon upon the of issue the note vacate the such period after such ready for but must must do period no service and after after service days after within 20 days do so within trial but for trial ready NY Corp., 24 JES/ NY motion shall ( Schroeder v IESI shown (Schroeder cause shown good cause for good except for allowed except shall be allowed motion AD3d [1st Dept Dept 2005]; 2005]; see 22 NYCRR NYCRR 202.21[e]). 202.21[e]). A party party may may move move outside outside AD3d 180, 181 [1st 151491/2019 ZHEN, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF OF CITY DEPARTMENT YORK CITY vs. NEW WEN VS. XIAO WEN ZHEN, XIAO 151491/2019 Motion No. No. 001 Motion [* 2] 2 of 8 Page 2 of of 8 Page INDEX NO. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 the 20-day 20-day timeframe timeframe to vacate vacate if there there is an unusual unusual or unanticipated unanticipated circumstance circumstance that that develops would otherwise develops that that would otherwise cause cause substantial substantial prejudice prejudice (Id.; Pannone Pannone v Silberstein, Silberstein, 40 AD3d AD3d 327, 328 [1st [1st Dept Dept 2007]; 2007]; see 22 NYCRR NYCRR 202.21[d]). 202.21[d]). DOE contends contends that that after after the NOi NOI was was filed, plaintiffs plaintiffs served served the the Supplemental Supplemental Bill of Particulars Particulars alleging alleging new new injuries. injuries. DOE contends contends that that they they had no opportunity opportunity to move move of within 20-day period period as it expired expired prior prior to service service of of the Supplemental Supplemental Bill, and it was was within the 20-day apparent that that plaintiffs plaintiffs would would be asserting asserting new new injuries. injuries. Defendants Defendants allege allege that that in not apparent light of the newly newly alleged alleged and unanticipated unanticipated injuries, injuries, the certificate certificate erroneously erroneously states states light that necessary necessary discovery discovery is complete complete and vacatur vacatur is warranted. warranted. that Plaintiffs filed their their Note Note of of Issue Issue on October October 26, 2022, 2022, and their their Supplemental Supplemental Plaintiffs of Particulars Particulars on December December 19, 2022. 2022. Defendants' Defendants' motion, motion, filed filed over over two two months months Bill of after the NOi, NOI, is untimely. untimely. Furthermore, Furthermore, defendants defendants have have failed failed to establish establish after unanticipated or unusual unusual circumstances circumstances that that would would justify vacatur. The The injuries injuries in the unanticipated justify vacatur. Supplemental Bill were were included included in the plaintiffs' plaintiffs' orthopedic orthopedic expert expert narrative narrative report, report, Supplemental provided to the the defendants defendants prior prior to the filing filing of the NOi. NO!. Each of the the continuing continuing injuries, injuries, provided limitations, and expenses expenses alleged alleged in the Supplemental Supplemental Bill may may be found found directly directly in a limitations, narrative report report section section entitled entitled "Current "Current Condition, Condition, Physical Physical Examination, Examination, and narrative Prognosis sections" sections" (See (See Exh. Cat Cat 5-7). Plaintiffs Plaintiffs established established that that a copy copy of of the the Prognosis narrative report report was was sent sent to defendants defendants via email email September September 21, 2021, 2021, with receipt narrative with receipt indicated on September September 27, 27,2021, subsequently exchanged exchanged again again on June June 1, 1,2022, 2022, indicated 2021, and subsequently the plaintiffs' plaintiffs' 3101 (d) expert expert exchange. exchange. as part of the Given that that defendants defendants were were in possession possession of this this report report with with the the relevant relevant Given information prior prior to the the filing filing of of the Note, these these supplemental supplemental pleadings pleadings do not constitute constitute information 151491/2019 ZHEN, ZHEN, XIAO WEN vs. NEW NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF 151491/2019 XIAO WEN YORK CITY Motion No. No. 001 Motion [* 3] 3 of 8 Page 3 of of 8 Page INDEX NO. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 an unusual unusual or unanticipated unanticipated circumstance circumstance (see Schroeder Schroeder v JES/ IESI NY NY Corp., Corp., 24 AD3d AD3d 180, 181 181 [1st Dept Dept 2005] 2005] [additional [additional shoulder shoulder injuries injuries alleged alleged in plaintiff's plaintiff's supplemental supplemental bill were were not new new and unusual unusual circumstances circumstances when when they they were were disclosed disclosed to defendants defendants prior prior to filing the the note]). note]). alternative, defendants defendants request request that that should should the court court decline decline to vacate, vacate, In the alternative, they be entitled entitled to post-note-of-issue post-note-of-issue discovery. discovery. Specifically, Specifically, defendants defendants are requesting requesting they that plaintiffs plaintiffs be compelled compelled to exchange exchange HIPAA HIPAA authorizations authorizations for for any any additional additional that treatment, appear appear for for a further further deposition, deposition, and appear appear for for a further further IME regarding regarding the treatment, injuries. Defendants Defendants contend, contend, "[t]rial "[t]rial courts courts are authorized, authorized, as a matter matter of of new injuries. discretion, to permit permit post-note-of-issue post-note-of-issue discovery discovery without without vacating vacating the the note note of of issue, so discretion, neither party party will be prejudiced" prejudiced" (Cupri/1 (Cuprill v Citywide Citywide Towing Towing and and Auto Repair Auto Repair long as neither AD3d 442,443 442, 443 [1st [1st Dept Dept 2017]; 2017]; Cabrera Cabrera v Abaev, Servs., 149 AD3d Abaev, 150 AD 3d 588, 588 [1st Dept 2017]). 2017]). Defendants Defendants contend contend there there would would be no prejudice prejudice in allowing allowing this this additional additional Dept discovery as the case case would would stay stay on the trial calendar. calendar. discovery However, post-note post-note discovery discovery is unwarranted unwarranted as the sought-after sought-after discovery discovery is in However, defendants' possession possession and was was even even before before the filing filing of the Note Note of Issue. Issue. As defendants' established, the the "new" "new" injuries injuries are those those that that were were asserted asserted in the the expert expert narrative narrative established, exchanged prior prior to the Note's Note's filing. filing. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs provided provided medical medical authorizations authorizations in report, exchanged October 2019 2019 and assert assert that that D. L. has not treated treated with any medical medical providers providers other other than than October those disclosed disclosed nor has had any any treatment treatment since. since. Defendants Defendants were were in possession possession of of those relevant medical medical records records when when conducting conducting their their deposition deposition and physical physical examination. examination. relevant medical examinations examinations took took place place 90 days days apart apart with with no treatment treatment occurring occurring The two medical within that that time-period. time-period. When When defendant defendant prepared prepared their their report, report, the plaintiffs' plaintiffs' expert expert within 15149112019 ZHEN, ZHEN, XIAO XIAO WEN WEN vs. NEW NEW YORK YORK CITY CITY DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF 151491/2019 Motion No. 001 Motion [* 4] 4 of 8 Page 4 of of 8 Page INDEX NO. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 there is that there report had already already been been exchanged exchanged (Exh. D, 0, E). Plaintiffs Plaintiffs have have established established that report discovery. further discovery. for further no need for post-note obtain post-note Accordingly, defendants to obtain the defendants permit the declines to permit Court declines the Court Accordingly, the post-note seeking post-note discovery or compel compel the the plaintiffs plaintiffs to provide provide it. Defendants' motion seeking Defendants' motion discovery discovery is therefore denied. . therefore denied discovery Summary Judgment: Judgment: Summary The proponent of motion must must make make a prima showing facie showing prima facie judgment motion summary judgment of a summary The proponent of evidence to sufficient evidence tendering sufficient of law, tendering matter of judgment as a matter entitlement to judgment of entitlement demonstrate the the absence absence of of any any material material issues issues of of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Prospect Hosp., Hosp., 68 fact (Alvarez demonstrate [1986]). Failure Failure to make make such facie showing showing requires requires a denial denial of of prima facie such a prima NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). the motion, regardless regardless of papers (Winegrad (Winegrad v New New York opposing papers of the opposing sufficiency of the sufficiency of the the motion, Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). . Once has been been made, made, the burden the burden showing has Once a showing 853 [1985]) form shifts to the party party opposing opposing the produce evidentiary admissible form proof in admissible evidentiary proof motion to produce the motion shifts the sufficient to establish establish the existence existence of of material material issues issues of of fact require a trial of the trial of which require fact which sufficient action (Zuckerman (Zuckerman v City City of of New New York, 49 NY2d NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [1980]). action safe. Defendants have have raised raised issues issues of playground was reasonably safe. was reasonably the playground whether the fact on whether of fact Defendants A property safe reasonably safe premises in a reasonably maintain the premises duty to maintain has a duty owner has property owner condition and may may be held held liable liable for dangerous condition condition that exists on the property the property that exists for a dangerous condition (Conneally v Diocese Diocese of of Rockville Rockville Ctr., 116 AD3d Dept 2014]). 2014]). Plaintiffs Plaintiffs AD3d 905, 906 [2d Dept (Conneally were have established NEST +M school school and were operated NEST owned and operated defendants owned the defendants that the established that have responsible for maintaining the premises. Therefore, DOE had a duty maintain the duty to maintain Therefore, DOE the premises. for maintaining responsible schoolyard premises in a reasonably reasonably safe dangerous of dangerous clear of and clear free and condition and free safe condition schoolyard premises conditions. conditions. 151491/2019 ZHEN, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CITY DEPARTMENT YORK CITY WEN vs. NEW XIAO WEN ZHEN , XIAO 151491/2019 Motion No. 001 Motion [* 5] 5 of 8 Page 5 of of 8 Page INDEX NO. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 Plaintiffs Plaintiffs contend contend they they have have established established that that defendants defendants breached breached their their duty duty as a dangerous dangerous snow snow and ice condition condition existed existed on the premises, premises, thereby thereby making making it unreasonably unreasonably unsafe, unsafe, and the the defendants defendants had knowledge knowledge of the the unsafe unsafe condition. condition. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs offer offer both the the testimony testimony of the infant-plaintiff infant-plaintiff D.L. and the the meteorological meteorological analysis of expert expert Mr. Wright Wright to establish establish the existence existence of the condition. condition. Submission Submission of analysis expert meteorologist meteorologist opinion, opinion, based based on meteorological meteorological data, data, may may be evidence evidence to an expert establish the origin origin of of an ice patch patch and the length length of of time time it was was present present before before the establish accident occurred occurred ((Santiago New York City City Health Health and and Hosps. Hosps. Corp., 66 AD3d 435 accident Santiago v New AD3d 435 Dept 2009]). 2009]). [1st Dept Further, plaintiffs plaintiffs contend contend that that this this evidence evidence establishes establishes that that the the defendants defendants had Further, constructive notice notice of of the the condition, condition, which which may be established established when when the the condition condition is constructive visible, apparent, apparent, and has existed existed for for a sufficient sufficient period period of of time time to allow allow the defendant defendant to visible, discover and remedy remedy it (Harrison (Harrison v New New York City City Tr. Tr. Auth., 472, 473 [1st discover Auth., 113 AD3d AD3d 472,473 Dept 2014]). 2014]). Dept However, partial partial summary summary judgment unwarranted as plaintiffs plaintiffs have have not made made a However, judgment is unwarranted prima faeie showing showing that that the playground playground was was not in reasonably reasonably safe safe condition condition (Trapper (Trepper v prima facie Henry St. Settlement, Settlement, 190 AD3d 624 [1st Dept Dept 2021]). 2021]). Specifically, Specifically, defendants defendants AD3d 623, 624 Henry allege there there are triable triable issues issues of of fact fact regarding regarding whether whether the dangerous dangerous snow snow and ice allege condition existed existed at the time time of the the accident accident as the plaintiff plaintiff said it did. Whether Whether a condition dangerous condition condition exists exists on the property property of another another so as to create create liability liability depends depends dangerous peculiar facts facts and circumstances circumstances of each each case case and is generally generally a question question of of fact fact on the peculiar (Camara v Costco Costeo Wholesale Wholesale Corp., 199 AD 3d 509 [1st [1st Dept Dept 2021]; 2021]; Curry Curry v for the jury jury (Camara AD3d 151491/2019 ZHEN, ZHEN, XIAO WEN vs. NEW NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF 151491/2019 XIAO WEN YORK CITY Motion No. No. 001 Motion [* 6] 6 of 8 Page 6 of of 8 Page INDEX NO. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 E. Extension, Extension, LLC, 202 3d 907, 908 [2d Dept Dept 2022]; Trincere v County County of of Suffolk, Suffolk, 90 2022]; Trincere AD3d 202 AD [1997]). . 977 [1997]) NY2d 976, 977 that testified that who testified Defendants rely on the infant-plaintiff D.L. who the infant-plaintiff of the testimony of the testimony Defendants know not know there was, he did not there was, or if there playground or the playground else on the anywhere else was no ice anywhere there was about it. D.L. also also testified alleged snow snow and ice condition condition before before the alleged that he did not see the testified that about was who was aide, who school aide, he fell. Defendants Defendants also Domicello, a school testimony from a Mr. Domicello, offer testimony also offer tasked looking for unsafe conditions plaintiffs. During During alleged by plaintiffs. one alleged the one such as the conditions such for unsafe with looking tasked with dangerous formation and if a dangerous recess, circular formation playground in a circular the playground walk the would walk recess, he would Domicello condition administration . Mr. Domicello the administration. students and the notify students would notify noticed, he would was noticed, condition was testimony raises This testimony testified not seen condition prior prior to the incident. incident. This raises a the condition seen the that he had not testified that visible and was as visible whether it was question both the condition and whether the condition of the existence of the existence question as to both was. apparent plaintiffs contend contend it was. apparent as plaintiffs snow and Additionally, removing snow of removing charge of custodian in charge school custodian the school Marinaro, the Mr. Marinaro, Additionally, Mr. the condition could not remember if he observed observed the condition during during his morning morning not remember that he could testified that ice, testified snow and marking clearing snow for clearing inspection. Mr. Marinaro Marinaro testified regarding the process for marking the process testified regarding inspection. were snow unsafe snow conditions were snow and ice conditions tape. If unsafe caution tape. with caution conditions with snow and ice conditions able to found, not be able would not students would the students tape and the caution tape with caution marked with would be marked they would found, they tape caution tape use the was no caution there was that there established that testimony established Marinara's testimony equipment. Mr. Marinaro's the equipment. the equipment of the accident- which could indicate indicate that examination of of the equipment that an examination which could the accidenttime of at the time torn children may other children that other found may have have torn alternatively, that for use, or, alternatively, appropriate for was appropriate that it was found that day that day the playground any used the playground that children used other children Additionally, other down. Additionally, tape down. caution tape any caution the about the without issues about factual issues raises factual testimony raises this testimony contend, this defendants contend, As defendants incident. As without incident. the that the existence condition and whether condition that dangerous condition constituted a dangerous whether it constituted the condition of the existence of CITY DEPARTMENT YORK CITY 151491/2019 ZHEN, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF WEN vs. NEW XIAO WEN ZHEN, XIAO 151491/2019 Motion No. 001 Motion No. [* 7] 7 of 8 Page 7 of of 8 Page INDEX NO. 151491/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2023 fact of fact questions of also questions defendants required to remedy remedy or remove. remove. There There are also were required defendants were condition , and the condition, of the constructive notice regarding whether notice of defendants had constructive the defendants whether the regarding exist, fact exist, of fact questions of As questions whether condition. As safe condition. a reasonably safe was in areasonably playground was the playground whether the motion for partial summary summary judgment issue of of liability liability is denied denied (see (see judgment on the issue for partial the motion Winegrad v New New York York Univ. Med. Ctr., Cfr., 64 NY2d NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). [1985]). Winegrad Conclusion: Conclusion: For the reasons set hereinabove, it is set in hereinabove, the reasons For ORDERED Note of Issue and strike strike of Issue the Note vacate the cross-motion to vacate defendants' cross-motion that defendants' ORDERED that the case from calendar is denied; denied; and it is further further trial calendar the trial from the further denied; and it is further ORDERED that cross-motion to compel compel is denied; defendants' cross-motion that defendants' ORDERED ORDERED plaintiffs' motion motion for partial summary issue the issue judgment on the summary judgment for partial the plaintiffs' that the ORDERED that of denied. liability is denied. of liability This constitutes the decision and order order of of the court. the court. the decision This constitutes ~MOYNE, J.s.c. ~ NICHbtAS W. MOYNE, J.S.C. NICHbtAS ~~~ 5/4/2023 5/4/2023 DATE CHECK ONE: CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: APPLICATION: CHECK APPROPRIATE : CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ ~ CASE DISPOSED CASE DISPOSED GRANTED GRANTED 0 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DISPOSITION NON-FINAL GRANTED PART GRANTED IN PART DENIED DENIED SUBMIT ORDER SUBMIT ORDER SETTLE ORDER SETTLE ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN ~ 151491/2019 ZHEN, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF OF CITY DEPARTMENT YORK CITY vs. NEW WEN VS. XIAO WEN ZHEN, XIAO 151491/2019 Motion No. 001 Motion No. [* 8] 8 of 8 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT .•. ~ « - D D OTHER OTHER REFERENCE REFERENCE Page 8 of of 8 Page

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.