Procedure and Affirmations

• October 15, 2026 First Department

  Defense Neuropsychological Exam: Plaintiff’s Lawyer Kept Out, but a Psychologist of His Choosing May Observe (Hall v Trustees of Columbia Univ., 1st Dept 2026)

  A person who sues for injuries may generally have a lawyer or other representative present at an examination by the defense’s doctor, but a court may limit that when the presence would keep the examiner from conducting a meaningful examination. Here, the First Department upheld an order, based on the defense expert’s unrebutted affidavit, keeping the plaintiff’s lawyer out of a defense neuropsychological examination, while allowing a licensed clinical psychologist of the plaintiff’s choosing to observe.

  Expert WitnessesProcedure and Affirmations

• October 15, 2026 First Department

  Suing the Right Owner in Time: Claim Dismissed Because the Property’s Owners Were Added Too Late (Gonzalez v Country Manor Apts., 1st Dept 2026)

  In New York, an injured person generally has three years to sue, and that time can run out if the lawsuit names the wrong party and the right one is not brought in before the deadline. Here, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the companies that owned the property where the plaintiff alleged he was hurt, because he did not seek to add them until almost four years after the accident.

  Procedure and AffirmationsPremises

• October 7, 2026 Second Department

  Ambulance Allegedly Sent Without Oxygen: Wrongful Death Claim Against NYC Fails for Lack of a Special Duty (Davis v City of New York, 2d Dept 2026)

  When a city sends an ambulance in response to a 911 call, it is performing a governmental function, and it can be held liable only if it owed the injured person a “special duty.” Here, the Second Department held that the City’s motion to dismiss a wrongful death complaint should have been granted because no such duty was alleged, even though a discovery sanction barred the City from offering evidence on liability.

  Notice of Claim and Municipal LiabilityProcedure and AffirmationsSummary Judgment

• September 29, 2026 First Department

  An Affirmation Without CPLR 2106’s Perjury Language Is Not Evidence in Admissible Form (Interasian v Park, 1st Dept 2026)

  Every affirmation must explicitly state that it is made “under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment” as CPLR 2106 requires. Here, the First Department reversed a $9.2 million judgment, in part because all of the plaintiff’s evidence came in through an attorney affirmation that failed to substantially conform to that language.

  Procedure and AffirmationsSummary Judgment

All Decision Day entries

Decision Day summarizes and comments on published court decisions. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless an entry says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in these cases.