descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Thomas v. Good Samaritan Hospital

Citations: 237 A.D.2d 429; 655 N.Y.S.2d 89; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2570

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 16, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiffs appealed a Supreme Court order from February 6, 1996, which granted Good Samaritan Hospital's motion to exempt Fred Landon, the hospital's Risk Manager, from appearing for an examination before trial. The court affirmed the order, stating that Landon, who declared he lacked personal knowledge of the case facts, was not required to be deposed simply because he verified the pleadings. The court emphasized that a corporate defendant has the right to choose which officers to produce for deposition. The decision to modify the preliminary conference order that initially required Landon’s appearance was deemed appropriate, and the plaintiffs' additional arguments were found to lack merit. The ruling was supported by Justices Thompson, Sullivan, Pizzuto, and Santucci.

Legal Issues Addressed

Deposition of Corporate Officers

Application: The court upheld the corporate defendant's right to select which officers to produce for a deposition, affirming that Fred Landon was not obligated to appear simply because he verified the pleadings.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that a corporate defendant has the right to choose which officers to produce for deposition.

Exemption from Deposition

Application: Fred Landon was exempted from appearing for a deposition as he declared he lacked personal knowledge of the case facts, and his verification of the pleadings did not necessitate his examination.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the order, stating that Landon, who declared he lacked personal knowledge of the case facts, was not required to be deposed simply because he verified the pleadings.

Merit of Additional Arguments

Application: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' additional arguments, finding them unpersuasive and lacking substance.

Reasoning: The plaintiffs' additional arguments were found to lack merit.

Modification of Preliminary Conference Order

Application: The court found it appropriate to modify the preliminary conference order that mandated Landon's appearance, supporting the discretion exercised by the lower court.

Reasoning: The decision to modify the preliminary conference order that initially required Landon’s appearance was deemed appropriate.