Font Size: 
Lawyer's 'Poor' Stapling Provokes Motion's Dismissal
New York Law Journal
September 25, 2009
Correction: The original version of this story incorrectly implied that Queens Supreme Court Justice Charles J. Markey dismissed a complaint on the basis of poor stapling. Rather, Justice Markey denied a motion for default judgment. In addition, he cited two other grounds for rejecting the motion: the notice of motion was not signed by counsel and the papers lacked any affidavit by the plaintiff as to her injuries.
In a case of first impression -- no pun intended -- a Queens, N.Y., judge has denied without prejudice a tort action because, in part, the plaintiffs attorneys stapled the complaint in what he said was a dangerously negligent manner.
"[T]he poor stapling of the papers was so negligent as to inflict, and did inflict repeatedly, physical injury to the court personnel handling them," Supreme Court Justice Charles J. Markey wrote in Jones v. Fuentes, 29865/2008. "Such negligence on the part of counsel shows a lack of consideration."
The judge also cited two other grounds for rejecting the motion, namely that the notice of motion was not signed by counsel and that the papers lacked any affidavit by the plaintiff as to her injuries.
The motion for default judgment involved a car accident with only minor injuries, and the denial will have no repercussion on the case, which has also been filed as an uninsured motorist action, according to Jeffrey Hirsch, an attorney for the plaintiff. Hirsch called the incident an outlier. He and his wife, who maintain an office in Cedarhurst, Long Island, have handled over 5,000 cases, he said, and the present decision marks the first time that a judge has complained about their stapling. A clerk for Markey said that the staples twice drew blood.
