CPLR Article 16 Apportionment And Dismissed Defendants Medical Malpractice
The authors write "Over the past two decades, this column has on three occasions addressed the issue of whether defendants may seek apportionment under CPLR Article 16 with respect to former defendants in the action who obtained merits based dismissals of the claims against them on summary judgment. It has been our steadfast position that such apportionment is prohibited by collateral estoppel and law of the case doctrine. It seems axiomatic that once a defendant has been adjudicated to be not liable as a matter of law, that finding is the law of the case, for all purposes. Nevertheless, efforts by defense counsel to defend their clients or limit their liability by blaming their former co-defendants continue to persist."
December 09, 2024 at 02:45 PM
14 minute read
Over the past two decades, this column has on three occasions addressed the issue of whether defendants may seek apportionment under CPLR Article 16 with respect to former defendants in the action who obtained merits based dismissals of the claims against them on summary judgment. It has been our steadfast position that such apportionment is prohibited by collateral estoppel and law of the case doctrine. It seems axiomatic that once a defendant has been adjudicated to be not liable as a matter of law, that finding is the law of the case, for all purposes. Nevertheless, efforts by defense counsel to defend their clients or limit their liability by blaming their former co-defendants continue to persist.
Our prior discussions of the subject identified several decisions which held that apportionment is not permitted in these circumstances, albeit not precisely as we have articulated. In the years since we last confronted this issue, however, the relevant appellate authority has recognized that defendants are collaterally estopped from attempting to place blame at trial on former defendants who were granted summary judgment. The evolution of this decisional law is the subject of this column.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWestchester Med Mal Case Resolved in Record Pre-Verdict Settlement for $35.6 Million
Trending Stories
- 1Government Attorneys Face Reassignment, Rescinded Job Offers in First Days of Trump Administration
- 2Disney Legal Chief Sees Pay Surge 36%
- 3Legaltech Rundown: Consilio Launches Legal Privilege Review Tool, Luminance Opens North American Offices, and More
- 4Buchalter Hires Longtime Sheppard Mullin Real Estate Partner as Practice Chair
- 5A.I. Depositions: Court Reporters Are Watching Texas Case
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250