Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Proper Objections at a Personal Injury Deposition
Historically, New York's Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) ' 3115 has governed the process by which attorneys have objected to questions during an examination before trial. In 2006, however, 22 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) ' 221.2 became effective and codified some of the objections that had arisen under the previous statute. Section 221.2 states that “[a] deponent shall answer all questions at a deposition, except (i) to preserve a privilege or right of confidentiality, (ii) to enforce a limitation set forth in an order of a court, or (iii) when the question is plainly improper and would, if answered, cause significant prejudice to any person. An attorney shall not direct a deponent not to answer except as provided in CPLR Rule 3115 or this subdivision.” An objection under Section 221.2 must be clearly stated by the witness' counsel in order to preserve it in case of appeal.
In a personal injury action there are four main categories of questions that an attorney can instruct his client not to answer. These categories are: 1) the palpably improper or irrelevant question; 2) privileged communications; 3) a defendant-physician's opinion of the co-defendant's alleged medical malpractice; and 4) the right against self-incrimination. See Palacino v. Brogno, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6843, *7-9 (Sup. Ct., Orange Co. Oct. 22, 2013). The four categories reflect the well-settled “standard governing the appropriate scope of questioning at a deposition [which] is not based on admissibility at trial, but on whether the questioning relates to the controversy and will assist in trial preparation.” Hildebrandt v. Stephan, 42 Misc.3d 719, 724 (Sup. Ct., Erie Co. 2013).
The Palpably Improper Question
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.