The errata sheet is not a do over

If you were injured due to someone else’s careless actions, we understand the challenges you may be facing. As a victim or a surviving family member, you could be dealing with the life-altering consequences of a serious accident.

Oh man, how many times do you get an EBT or EUO transcript that has an errata sheet that actually rewrote the examination?  I will one of these days put on here an EUO I did where EIP admitted that he was a ULD (unlisted driver) and then in his errata sheet changed all of the answers.

Here is the case:   Ashford v Tannenhauser, 2013 NY Slip Op 05508 (2d Dept. 2013)

 

“In his post-deposition errata sheet, the injured plaintiff radically changed much of his earlier testimony, with the vague explanation that he had been “nervous” during his deposition. CPLR 3116(a) provides that a “deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him or her, and any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered at the end of the deposition with a statement of reasons given by the witness for making them.” Since the injured plaintiff failed to offer an adequate reason for materially altering the substance of his deposition testimony, the altered testimony could not properly be considered in determining the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether a defect in, or the inadequacy of, the ladder caused his fall (see Garcia-Rosales v Bais Rochel Resort, 100 AD3d 687Shell v Kone El. Co., 90 AD3d 890Thompson v Commack Multiplex Cinemas, 83 AD3d 929Kuzimin v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 56 AD3d 438, 439). In the absence of the proposed alterations, the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the defectiveness or inadequacy of the ladder so as to warrant the denial of summary judgment. Likewise, in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing that the trust was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to repair or maintain the ladder or the floor, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print

2 Responses

  1. In light of Lifex v. Safeco, they are construed similarly. You know, it is weird when I hear the words “safeco”. Alrof, Lifex… What was going on there? I am clueless.

Latest Article

DON'T ACCEPT LESS THAN WHAT YOU'RE OWED!

Choosing the right legal representation is one of the most critical decisions you can make after an accident.

Partnering with a skilled, experienced, and dedicated personal injury attorney can bolster your case and position you to secure the full financial compensation you’re entitled to.

Our firm is ready to manage every aspect of your case, including negotiations with insurance companies. We reject inadequate settlement offers and relentlessly fight for the maximum compensation you rightfully deserve.

Contact Us – We’re Here to Help


    5-Star Rating on Google