Many Buffalo personal injury lawsuits are straightforward matters that should be resolved without a trial. To facilitate the quick resolution of such lawsuits, New York State law allows a party to request “summary judgment” when the facts of a case can lead to only one conclusion. The original intent of allowing a judge to grant summary judgment in such cases was to speed the process and keep the courts from becoming bogged down. Unfortunately, in some cases the dispute between the parties regarding whether summary judgment is warranted actually has an effect opposite of that intended.
This fact is well-demonstrated by a medical malpractice lawsuit that was recently before an appellate court on the other side of New York State. In Ostrov v. Rozbruch, the defendant had submitted papers requesting summary judgment. The plaintiff’s response included the affidavit from another surgeon. The Court noted that this surgeon’s affidavit lacked specific information necessary to refute the defendant’s request for summary judgment, but held off on a decision to give the plaintiff additional time to provide that additional information.
Both parties eventually ended up submitting multiple affidavits from experts in several different medical fields as they attempted to undermine each other’s position. The trial court ultimately did not issue a ruling on the original motion until 17 months after it was filed – greatly delaying the resolution of the case and running counter to the purpose of seeking summary judgment in the first place.
After reviewing the record, the appellate court noted that while its earlier rulings may have created an impression that supplemental filings for summary judgment could be used in this fashion, they should actually be used only sparingly in personal injury lawsuits.
{ 0 comments… add one now }