Roe v. Doe
| Decision Date | 27 April 1994 |
| Citation | 612 N.Y.S.2d 558,160 Misc.2d 1074 |
| Parties | Maryjane ROE and Arthur Roe, Plaintiffs, v. John DOE et al., Defendants. * Supreme Court, New York County, IAS, Part 29 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Perry & Schwarz by David Marquez, for plaintiffs.
Aaronson, Rappaport, Feinstein & Deutsch by Robert S. Deutsch, for defendants.
May the plaintiffs at the trial of a medical malpractice action ask a defendant physician, who has been convicted of a crime, about disciplinary proceedings based on that conviction that resulted in the suspension of the doctor's license? I held that the plaintiffs may not make that inquiry.
One of the defendants, a private physician, Dr. John Doe, had placed a male infant for adoption with Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum. He testified that Ms. Nussbaum had been his infertility patient for some years. When an underage patient of his was giving birth out of wedlock, the patient and her mother wished to have the child placed quietly. Dr. Doe, believing that he was benefiting the mother and the prospective adoptive parents, placed the infant with Steinberg and Nussbaum, who already had another child, Lisa Steinberg, placed with them. He felt comfortable that he was placing the child with responsible adoptive parents. He also testified that he had referred the natural mother to an attorney, whom he believed would institute formal adoption proceedings.
The tragic events leading to Lisa Steinberg's death, the indictment of Joel Steinberg for her death, and the trial at which Hedda Nussbaum testified were the subject of intense media coverage. Once the investigation of Lisa Steinberg's death started, Dr. Doe was charged with violation of Social Services Law Sections 374(2) and 389 which prohibit the placement of a child for adoption by an unauthorized person or entity and render such act a misdemeanor. Dr. Doe, who was unauthorized, immediately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years' probation, a fine of $1,500, and was required to perform 100 hours of community service. The sentencing court noted that the charge against Dr. Doe was the first time that Section 374(2) of the Social Services Law had been the basis of a prosecution, and credited Dr. Doe's assertion that he was unaware of the existence of the law.
After he was convicted, professional disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him which resulted in the suspension of Dr. Doe's license to practice medicine for six months.
The instant medical malpractice action was commenced by a couple against Dr. Doe, who delivered their child. The plaintiffs claimed malpractice in connection with the postpartum care of the mother. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. During the trial plaintiffs wished to make full inquiry of Dr. Doe concerning the conviction. Defendants sought to bar the inquiry totally. I allowed testimony concerning the conviction and the facts underlying the conviction as bearing upon the credibility of Dr. Doe. See: Section 498, Richardson on Evidence, 10th edition. Also see: CPLR § 4513. That section states:
"A person who has been convicted of a crime is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kostel v. Schwartz
...Mich. App. 72, 454 N.W.2d 603 (1990); Nowatske v. Osterloh, 201 Wis.2d 497, 549 N.W.2d 256 (Ct.App.1996); and Roe v. Doe, 160 Misc.2d 1074, 612 N.Y.S.2d 558 (N.Y.Sup. Ct.1994). [¶14.] These cases are consistent with the precept that inquiry into an expert's alleged mistakes or connection to......
-
Baragano v. Vaynshelbaum
...other than to prejudicially influence the jurors on the issue of [defendant's] percentage of fault." Id., at 303. Similarly, in Roe v. Doe, 160 Misc. 2d 1074, plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Doe committed malpractice in negligently providing postpartum care to Mrs. Roe. The Roessought to admit ......
-
Witness examination
...The circumstances surrounding a conviction in another jurisdiction, as well as the fact of the conviction, are admissible. Roe v. Doe , 160 Misc. 2d 1074, 612 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct., New York Cnty., 1994). In a medical malpractice case by parents in connection with the birth of a child, it ......
-
Witness examination
...the question to the operator’s wife who was not in the vehicle at the time, where there was no evidence of a conviction. Roe v. Doe , 160 Misc.2d 1074, 612 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1994). In medical malpractice case by parents in connection with the birth of a child, it was ......
-
Witness examination
...the question to the operator’s wife who was not in the vehicle at the time, where there was no evidence of a conviction. Roe v. Doe , 160 Misc.2d 1074, 612 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1994). In medical malpractice case by parents in connection with the birth of a child, it was ......
-
Witness examination
...the question to the operator’s wife who was not in the vehicle at the time, where there was no evidence of a conviction. Roe v. Doe , 160 Misc.2d 1074, 612 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1994). In medical malpractice case by parents in connection with the birth of a child, it was ......