Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KAI LIN, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF DENTISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER, UNIVERSITY DENTAL FACULTY GROUP, DR. CARLO ERCOLI, DR. JANE BREWER, OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, CHRISTIAN C. CASINI, ESQ., DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT. KAI LIN, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER, UNIVERSITY DENTAL FACULTY GROUP, DR. CARLO ERCOLI, OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP AND CHRISTIAN C. CASINI, ESQ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment and order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action asserting causes of action for, inter alia, fraud and spoliation of evidence after her prior dental malpractice action was dismissed and the order dismissing that action was affirmed by this Court (Kai Lin v. Strong Health [appeal No. 1], 82 AD3d 1585, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 899, rearg. denied 18 NY3d 878). Plaintiff appeals from a judgment and order that, inter alia, granted defendants' motions to dismiss the instant complaint and imposed sanctions in the form of an award of legal fees and costs to defendants-respondents (defendants). We reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint. To the extent that the complaint alleged “fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” committed during the course of the prior litigation, plaintiff's sole remedy was a motion to vacate the court's prior order pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3). “A litigant's remedy for alleged fraud in the course of a legal proceeding ‘lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself, i.e., by moving pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the [order] due to its fraudulent procurement, not a second plenary action collaterally attacking the [order]’ “ (Vinokur v. Penny Lane Owners Corp., 269 A.D.2d 226, 226; see St. Clement v. Londa, 8 AD3d 89, 90). In addition, “the tort of third-party negligent spoliation of evidence ․ is not cognizable in this state” (Ortega v. City of New York, 9 NY3d 69, 73). We have considered plaintiff's other contentions with respect to the dismissal of the complaint, and we conclude that they are without merit. Finally, we reject plaintiff's contention that the court erred in imposing sanctions. Absent a “clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the court's determination that the conduct in question was frivolous and that it warranted the imposition of” sanctions in the form of legal fees and costs (Matter of Bedworth–Holgado v. Holgado, 85 AD3d 1589, 1590). We decline, however, to grant defendants' request for the imposition of sanctions based on plaintiff's pursuit of this appeal.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–00998
Decided: August 08, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)