Barranco v. Cabrini Medical Center

Apr 1, 2008
Versions:50 A.D.3d 281
855 N.Y.S.2d 431
Stevenson v. Cabrini Med. Ctr. Barranco v. Cabrini Medical Center [855 NYS2d 431] (Reporter) Supreme Court, New York County (Braun, J.) April 18, 2007 (Entered) NYS2d 431 Braun, J. People v. Jordan [855 NYS2d 409] (Reporter) Supreme Court, New York County (Soloff, J.) April 16, 2007 (Rendered) NYS2d 409 Soloff, J. People ex rel. Taylor v. Warden, Rikers Island Corr. Facility [853 NYS2d 882] (Reporter) Supreme Court, New York County (Soloff, J.) December 18, 2006 (Entered) NYS2d 882 Soloff, J. People v. Jones [855 NYS2d 69] (Reporter) Supreme Court, New York County (Zweibel, J.) May 3, 2007 (Entered) NYS2d 69 Zweibel, J. The prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” In this PDF: Page 1 starts with the conclusion of an ADF LI / ADF Operating Corp case. Then there is a case: Denise Barranco, Appellant, v Cabrini Medical Center, Respondent. This has a caption and a body. Then there is a case: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Jordan, Appellant. Then there is a case: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Roy Taylor, Appellant, v Warden, Rikers Island Correctional Facility, Respondent. Then there is a case: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Jones, Appellant. The “main” one following the partial start is Barranco v Cabrini Medical Center. Let‘s re-read the instruction: “multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” Usually, this means the first full opinion in the snippet provided. The first full opinion is Denise Barranco v Cabrini Medical Center. Wait, looking at the OCR, the Barranco case starts on page 1 and ends on page 2. Then Jordan, then Taylor, then Jones. I will convert Barranco v Cabrini Medical Center as the main opinion. Metadata for Barranco: ShortName: Barranco v. Cabrini Med. Ctr. Court: Supreme Court, New York County (Appellate Division, First Department? The citation 855 NYS2d 431 and the Concur list Gonzalez, J.P., etc suggests App. Div. 1st Dept. The order being appealed is Supreme Court, New York County. The “281” suggests Appellate Division Reports). Actually, the Concur list Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. is characteristic of the AD. Citation: 855 NYS2d 431 (also 49 AD3d 303 in reality, though not in the snippet). Date: Snippet mentions the order appealed was entered April 18, 2007. The actual decision date for 855 NYS2d 431 is March 4, 2008. The snippet doesn‘t explicitly state the AD decision date, only the Supreme Court order date. I will use the Supreme Court order date as the only available date or leave it. Wait, the page top says 281. The docket/date isn‘t explicitly there at the top of the case. I will look closer at the image. “Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered April 18, 2007... unanimously affirmed“. The Concur list: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. ShortName: Barranco v. Cabrini Med. Ctr. Court: N.Y. App. Div. (First Department) Citation: 855 NYS2d 431 Wait, looking at the text “Denise Barranco, Appellant, v Cabrini Medical Center, Respondent. [855 NYS2d 431]“. I will format this one. One detail: The ADF LI text at the very top is a partial opinion. I should skip it. Let‘s do Barranco. ```html

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered April 18, 2007, which, after granting defendant‘s trial motion to amend its answer to assert lack of standing, dismissed the complaint on that ground, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On or about February 21, 2001, plaintiff filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Some two months later, on or about April 17, she sustained injury due to the alleged negligence of defendant. On May 29, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order of discharge, and on June 22 the trustee certified that plaintiff‘s bankruptcy estate had been fully administered. The instant action was commenced in March 2002.

It is undisputed that plaintiff never reported to the Bankruptcy Court or her court-appointed trustee the existence of any potential claim for damages from the incident that occurred at defendant hospital. When defendant eventually learned of the bankruptcy proceeding, it was permitted to amend its answer to plead the affirmative defense of lack of standing.

It is well settled that the failure to schedule a legal claim as an asset in a bankruptcy proceeding deprives the debtor of standing to raise it in a subsequent legal action (see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191 [1987]; Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [2007]). Although plaintiff argues that her claim against defendant survived because it accrued after she had filed for bankruptcy, the fact remains that whether the claim asserted in the complaint arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition or afterward, such claim is still the property of the bankrupt‘s estate pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code (Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197 [2004]). Since it is clear that plaintiff‘s claim against defendant accrued while her bankruptcy proceeding was still pending, she could not institute the present action. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

``` Wait, the instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Then I see “Multi-Opinion Documents: If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... skip partial content...“. Actually, in these reporter pages, there are often 3-4 short opinions per page. Usually, when provided with such a snippet, I should process the first full case. Or do all? “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” In these reporter pages, each summary/decision is an “opinion“. Barranco is the first complete one. Jordan, Taylor, and Jones follow. Usually “MAIN opinion” in this context refers to the first complete case. If I do all, it becomes very long and might deviate from “convert only the first opinion“. Wait, re-reading: “Multi-Opinion Documents ... convert only the MAIN opinion ... skip partial content from a previous case ... multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” The Barranco case is the first full one. Wait, looking at the OCR for Jordan and Taylor. They are very short. Jordan is a “Judgment ... unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed.” Taylor has some text. Jones is an “Order ... unanimously affirmed.” followed by text. I will stick to the Barranco opinion. Wait, looking at the instruction: “multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” The Barranco opinion starts on p 281 and ends on p 282. One small detail: “281” is at the top of the page. That‘s the page number. Let‘s double check citations in Barranco. - White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 426 [2007] -> This is in the partial case at the top. I skip it. - Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191 [1987] - Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [2007] - Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197 [2004] Citation for Barranco: [855 NYS2d 431]. Wait, what if Barranco is NOT the main opinion? The PDF contains the end of Case A, then Case B (Barranco), Case C (Jordan), Case D (Taylor), Case E (Jones). Case B is the first complete case. Let‘s refine the court for Barranco. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. This is clearly the Appellate Division, First Department. I will use “N.Y. App. Div.” as court abbreviation. Date: The order was entered April 18, 2007. The actual AD decision date is March 4, 2008. The snippet doesn‘t show the 2008 date. The prompt says “date in YYYY-MM-DD format if known“. I will leave it blank or just use the 2007 year from the Supreme Court order since the AD date isn‘t in the source text. Actually, the [855 NYS2d 431] is the reporter citation. I will use date=“2008-03-04” if I knew it for sure, but the instructions say to use metadata from the document. The document says “entered April 18, 2007” for the lower court order. I‘ll omit the date in the attribute if not found on the page. Wait, is there a date at the top? No. Is there a docket? No. Let‘s prepare the tags. Citation boundaries for “Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191 [1987]“: Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191 [1987] “Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [2007]“: Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [2007] “Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197 [2004]“: Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197 [2004] Check punctuation. The OCR says “J.E” but it‘s “J.P.” in the image. I must use J.P. OCR: “plaintiffs bankruptcy estate“. Image: “plaintiff‘s bankruptcy estate“. (possessive). OCR: “CEL 180.80“. Image: “CPL 180.80“. (Criminal Procedure Law). This is in the Taylor case, but I‘m doing Barranco. Refining Barranco‘s “Order... unanimously affirmed, without costs” paragraph. The line “Denise Barranco, Appellant, v Cabrini Medical Center, Respondent. [855 NYS2d 431]” is the caption. Is there any syllabus? No. One more look at “multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” Does it mean the first full one, or just Case B? If Case B is Case 1, then convert Case 1. I will convert Barranco. ```html

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered April 18, 2007, which, after granting defendant‘s trial motion to amend its answer to assert lack of standing, dismissed the complaint on that ground, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On or about February 21, 2001, plaintiff filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Some two months later, on or about April 17, she sustained injury due to the alleged negligence of defendant. On May 29, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order of discharge, and on June 22 the trustee certified that plaintiff‘s bankruptcy estate had been fully administered. The instant action was commenced in March 2002.

It is undisputed that plaintiff never reported to the Bankruptcy Court or her court-appointed trustee the existence of any potential claim for damages from the incident that occurred at defendant hospital. When defendant eventually learned of the bankruptcy proceeding, it was permitted to amend its answer to plead the affirmative defense of lack of standing.

It is well settled that the failure to schedule a legal claim as an asset in a bankruptcy proceeding deprives the debtor of standing to raise it in a subsequent legal action (see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191 [1987]; Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [2007]). Although plaintiff argues that her claim against defendant survived because it accrued after she had filed for bankruptcy, the fact remains that whether the claim asserted in the complaint arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition or afterward, such claim is still the property of the bankrupt‘s estate pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code (Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197 [2004]). Since it is clear that plaintiff‘s claim against defendant accrued while her bankruptcy proceeding was still pending, she could not institute the present action. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

``` Wait, “Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.” is usually at the end of the decision text. The image shows it is part of the final paragraph of the Barranco decision. Wait, looking at the end of Case A: “Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.” Looking at Jordan: “Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.” Looking at Taylor: “Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.” These are separate opinions. The Barranco opinion ends with the Concur line on page 282. One thing: there‘s a horizontal line before Denise Barranco on page 281. And a black block/separator. There‘s another horizontal line and black block before Jordan. I skip partial content. One check: Bankruptcy Code is not a specific law cite with a number here, just a general reference. I won‘t wrap “Bankruptcy Code” unless it has a section. Final check on page breaks: “It is well settled that the failure to schedule a legal claim as” [end of 281] “an asset in a bankruptcy proceeding” [start of 282] Correct. Final check on citations: “Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191 [1987]” Case name: Dynamics Corp. of Am. v. Marine Midland Bank-N.Y. Cite: 69 NY2d 191 Court: N.Y. Date: 1987 “Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [2007]” Case: Gazes v. Bennett Cite: 38 AD3d 287 Court: N.Y. App. Div. (AD3d is Appellate Division, 3rd series) Date: 2007 “Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197 [2004]” Case: Williams v. Stein Cite: 6 AD3d 197 Court: N.Y. App. Div. (AD3d is Appellate Division) Date: 2004 The block “Order, Supreme Court... unanimously affirmed, without costs.” is the summary of the holding/disposition. It‘s essentially the start of the opinion. One nuance: the text says “Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.” In New York Appellate Division reports, this list of judges is the signature/attribution for the memorandum decision. I will keep it in the paragraph as shown. Wait, is there anything after the Concur line? No, the next thing is the Jordan case. Final confirmation on multiple opinions: “convert only the first opinion“. I will convert Denise Barranco v Cabrini Medical Center. What about Case A (ADF LI)? The snippet starts with “The economic interest defense is not applicable...“. This is definitely the end of a previous opinion. Instructions say “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” So I start with the Barranco case caption. One detail: “Concur—Gonzalez, J.E” in OCR is wrong, image says “J.P.“. OCR “CEL 180.80” is wrong, image says “CPL 180.80“. I‘m not doing Taylor, but it‘s good to notice. The shortName for Denise Barranco, Appellant, v Cabrini Medical Center, Respondent. should be “Barranco v. Cabrini Med. Ctr.“. Final check on court attribute: The Concur list is clearly the Appellate Division. The citation 855 NYS2d 431 is an AD reporter. I‘ll use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. ```html

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered April 18, 2007, which, after granting defendant‘s trial motion to amend its answer to assert lack of standing, dismissed the complaint on that ground, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On or about February 21, 2001, plaintiff filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Some two months later, on or about April 17, she sustained injury due to the alleged negligence of defendant. On May 29, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order of discharge, and on June 22 the trustee certified that plaintiff‘s bankruptcy estate had been fully administered. The instant action was commenced in March 2002.

It is undisputed that plaintiff never reported to the Bankruptcy Court or her court-appointed trustee the existence of any potential claim for damages from the incident that occurred at defendant hospital. When defendant eventually learned of the bankruptcy proceeding, it was permitted to amend its answer to plead the affirmative defense of lack of standing.

It is well settled that the failure to schedule a legal claim as an asset in a bankruptcy proceeding deprives the debtor of standing to raise it in a subsequent legal action (see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 69 NY2d 191 [1987]; Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [2007]). Although plaintiff argues that her claim against defendant survived because it accrued after she had filed for bankruptcy, the fact remains that whether the claim asserted in the complaint arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition or afterward, such claim is still the property of the bankrupt‘s estate pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code (Williams v Stein, 6 AD3d 197 [2004]). Since it is clear that plaintiff‘s claim against defendant accrued while her bankruptcy proceeding was still pending, she could not institute the present action. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

``` Wait, I should not include the ADF LI content. Correct. The ADF LI content starts with “The economic interest defense...” and ends with “Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.” Actually, wait. The ADF LI case is Case 1. Barranco is Case 2. But Case 1 is partial. The instruction says: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Case 1 is partial (missing caption). Case 2 is full. So I do Case 2. One check: is there a signature block? “Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.” serves as the signature line in these memo decisions. I will leave it as is within the paragraph as formatted in the reporter. One more look at “Bankruptcy Code“. No section number, so no ``. Cite for Gazes v Bennett: “38 AD3d 287“. AD3d is Appellate Division, 3rd series. Court is N.Y. App. Div. Cite for Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y.: “69 NY2d 191“. NY2d is New York Reports (Court of Appeals). Court is N.Y. Cite for Williams v Stein: “6 AD3d 197“. Court is N.Y. App. Div. Double check the start of 282. End of 281: “failure to schedule a legal claim as” Start of 282: “an asset in a bankruptcy proceeding” Matches perfectly. Wait, is there any docket number? No. The reporter citation “[855 NYS2d 431]” is there. One detail: “unanimously affirmed, without costs.” is the last part of the first paragraph. The paragraphs: 1. Order... unanimously affirmed... 2. On or about... 3. It is undisputed... 4. It is well settled... (split across pages). Actually, there are two distinct blocks for the caption area. Block 1: “Denise Barranco, Appellant, v Cabrini Medical Center, Respondent. [855 NYS2d 431]” Block 2: “Order, Supreme Court, New York County... unanimously affirmed, without costs.” This second block is often treated as the syllabus or headnote in some contexts, but in New York memorandum decisions, it‘s often the lead paragraph of the opinion. I will treat it as the first paragraph of the body. The Concur line is part of the final paragraph in the image. “present action. Concur—Gonzalez...“. I will keep it in that paragraph. Final check on HTML structure: `` `` `

...

` ... Ready.