Key Takeaway
New York Appellate Term explores judicial notice boundaries in res judicata case, examining when courts "may" take notice of Supreme Court records without party request.
Courts have significant discretion when it comes to taking judicial notice of court records and files, but the boundaries of this authority can create strategic questions for practitioners. A recent Appellate Term decision highlights an intriguing aspect of this evidentiary rule: whether a court’s ability to take judicial notice requires a specific request from the parties, or if courts can act on their own initiative.
The case involves a denial of claims dispute where the court examined its power to take judicial notice of a Supreme Court declaratory judgment file. This situation demonstrates how procedural nuances in evidence law can significantly impact litigation outcomes, particularly in cases involving res judicata defenses.
Understanding when and how courts exercise their discretionary authority over judicial notice is crucial for attorneys preparing motions and briefs. The distinction between “may” and “shall” in judicial language often carries significant procedural implications that can affect case strategy.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
IMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Hertz Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50258(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
This res judicata decision is interesting because it tests the outer of bounds of Judicial Notice.
“In any event, this court may take judicial notice of undisputed court records and files, including the judgment in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action (see Renelique v State-Wide Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op 50096 App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & [*2]13th Jud Dists 2016]; see also Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 ; Matter of Khatibi v Weill, 8 AD3d 485 ; Matter of Allen v Strough, 301 AD2d 11 ). In light of the Supreme Court’s declaratory judgment, defendant’s cross motion to dismiss should have been granted under the doctrine of res judicata”
The Court uses the word “may”. May requires a request in your papers?
Key Takeaway
The court’s use of “may” rather than “shall” when discussing judicial notice raises important procedural questions. While courts have discretionary authority to take judicial notice of court records, practitioners should consider whether this discretion requires a specific party request or if courts can act sua sponte. This distinction could impact how attorneys structure their motion papers and supporting documentation in future cases.
