Legal Blog

New York Supreme Court Issues Reminder That Errata Sheets Must Be Timely and Are Not Opportunities for Substantive Edits to Deposition Testimony

Carroll v. City of N.Y., 150464/2016, February 20, 2019, Bluth, J.

In a slip-and-fall case, Justice Arlene Bluth recently schooled plaintiff’s counsel on the meaning of CPLR 3116(a), specifically on the limits of the use of errata sheets and when untimely errata sheets are permitted.

Plaintiff, an elderly woman, took longer than the allowed 60 days to complete her errata sheet. The Court found that “being elderly” was insufficient reason to extend the time to respond and that receiving a transcript late does not automatically toll the time to submit the errata sheet.

However, what the Court found more important was the scope of the proposed changes and the lack of reasonable grounds for the changes. Plaintiff sought to alter her testimony with regard to the distance that her accident took place in relation to a sidewalk grate, her reluctance to walk near grates, the timing of her accident, how the accident occurred and whether there were any witnesses to her accident. Plaintiff’s purported reasons did not withstand scrutiny by the Court. For example, plaintiff claimed that the witness did not understand the question; the Court found the question “not confusing” and that “plaintiff offered a coherent response” in the deposition. The Court also disallowed the attempt to include new information and held that providing “a more complete answer” is not a valid reason to change the substance of an existing answer.

Though the CPLR allows for substantive changes to deposition transcripts through errata sheets if supported by sufficient justification, the lesson of this decision was ably summed up by the Court, stating that of the “purpose[s] of an errata sheet is to correct obvious errors in a deposition transcript. Often, these errors are typographical or might be a mistake made by a court reporter… Certainly, an errata sheet may be used to make larger changes (even substantive alterations) to a deposition transcript where the deponent believes the transcript mischaracterizes what was actually said.” However, “[a]n errata sheet is not designed to permit a [party] to strengthen her case by changing key answers…”

 

 

If you have any questions on this topic, please contact Theodor at tbruening@offitkurman.com or 212.380.4111

 

 

ABOUT THEODOR BRUENING

tbruening@offitkurman.com  |  212.380.4111

Theodor has practiced for a number of years in national and international litigation and arbitration. His practice mainly focuses on dispute resolution in construction, architectural, defamation and commercial cases. He also advises on immigration and labor law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABOUT OFFIT KURMAN

Offit Kurman is one of the fastest-growing, full-service law firms in the mid-Atlantic region. With over 185 attorneys offering a comprehensive range of services in virtually every legal category, the firm is well positioned to meet the needs of dynamic businesses and the people who own and operate them. Our twelve offices serve individual and corporate clients along the I95 corridor in the Virginia, Washington, DC, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York City regions. At Offit Kurman, we are our clients’ most trusted legal advisors, professionals who help maximize and protect business value and personal wealth. In every interaction, we consistently maintain our clients’ confidence by remaining focused on furthering their objectives and achieving their goals in an efficient manner. Trust, knowledge, confidence—in a partner, that’s perfect.

Find out why Offit Kurman is The Better Way to protect your business, your assets and your family by connecting via our BlogFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTube, and LinkedIn pages. You can also sign up to receive Law Matters, Offit Kurman’s monthly newsletter covering a diverse selection of legal and corporate thought leadership content.

MARYLAND | PENNSYLVANIA | VIRGINIA| NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK | DELAWARE | WASHINGTON, DC