GRAY v. JAEGER (2005)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Michele GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence JAEGER, D.O., Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: April 28, 2005

BUCKLEY, P.J., SULLIVAN, ELLERIN, WILLIAMS, CATTERSON, JJ.

Reardon & Sclafani, P.C., Tarrytown (Michael V. Sclafani of counsel), for appellant. Brown & Tarantino, LLP, Buffalo (Ann M. Campbell of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered November 9, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to strike the answer only to the extent of allowing an adverse inference with respect to defendant's failure to produce her medical records, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of striking the answer, and otherwise affirmed, with costs in favor of plaintiff, payable by defendant.

Although defendant's conduct in failing to maintain plaintiff's medical records was not necessarily contumacious, it was clearly negligent. Defendant breached his ethical and statutory duty to retain plaintiff's medical records for at least six years (Education Law § 6530[3]; 8 NYCRR § 29.2[a] [3] ). Since this failure deprived plaintiff of any means of establishing a prima facie case, the striking of defendant's answer is the appropriate remedy (Herrera v. Matlin, 303 A.D.2d 198, 758 N.Y.S.2d 7 [2003]; see also Cabasso v. Goldberg, 288 A.D.2d 116, 733 N.Y.S.2d 47 [2001] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network