OrthoTec v. Healthpoint Capital
924 N.Y.S.2d 78
N.Y. App. Div.
2011
Check Treatment
Stevenson Rosenfeld et al. v. Renika Pty. Ltd. et al. is not the main opinion because it‘s a short memorandum decision and it starts on the second page. The Hedge Fund Capital Partners, LLC v. Thor Asset Management, Inc. case also starts on the second page. The first case, OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capital, LLC, starts on page 702 and is the most complete case in the provided images. I will focus on converting that case. Actually, the first page starts with the end of a previous case, then the OrthoTec case begins. The instructions say “If the document contains multiple opinions... 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.” Wait, the OrthoTec case (924 NYS2d 78) starts on page 702. The Rosenfeld case (923 NYS2d 328) and Hedge Fund case (923 NYS2d 838) follow. I will convert the OrthoTec case. Wait, looking at the layout, these are short summary decisions from the Appellate Division, First Department. There are three distinct decisions shown. OrthoTec is the “main” one in that it has a full body. Actually, OrthoTec is the most complete. Let‘s process OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capital, LLC. Metadata for OrthoTec: - Case name: ORTHOTEC, LLC v. HEALTHPOINT CAPITAL, LLC, et al. - Short name: OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capital, LLC - Citation: 924 NYS2d 78 (or 84 A.D.3d 702 based on the page number 702) - Court: N.Y. App. Div. - Date: November 27, 2009 (Judgment date) - but the appellate decision date isn‘t explicitly listed on the page besides the judgment it is reviewing. However, looking at the N.Y.S.2d citation, it‘s from 2011. I will check the context. These appear to be from May 2011 based on the NYS2d volume series, but I‘ll stick to what is on the page. Actually, the date “November 27, 2009” is the date of the judgment being reviewed. The appellate decision date isn‘t explicitly stated on the page. I‘ll omit the date from metadata if not explicitly provided as a decision date. - Docket: Not provided. - Citation: 924 NYS2d 78. Let‘s begin. Wait, looking at the screenshot, the decision date is usually at the start of the term section. It is not visible here. I‘ll omit the date attribute in metadata. Correction: “hereby affirmed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.” is the end of a PREVIOUS case. The OrthoTec case starts with the black square. Let‘s start the HTML.

ORTHOTEC, LLC, Appellant, v HEALTHPOINT CAPITAL, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

[924 NYS2d 78]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered November 27, 2009, dismissing the amended complaint against defendants Healthpoint Capital, LLC, John Foster, Mortimer Berkowitz, III, Healthpoint Capital Partners, LP, and Healthpoint Capital Partners II, LP pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the amended complaint reinstated.

The instant action is not barred by collateral estoppel. “[T]he prior denial of a motion in the underlying case to set aside a default and default judgment has no collateral estoppel effect to bar an independent action in equity directly attacking the prior judgment” ( [emphasis omitted]).* Although plaintiff cites no case where this principle was applied to a motion to add a judgment debtor and a subsequent plenary action, defendants do not contest plaintiff‘s extension of the rule. In any event, the rationale for the rule (see ) applies to a motion to add a judgment debtor.

To be sure, “collateral estoppel will bar the subsequent independent action . . . if . . . the moving party was in fact given a hearing on the motion that was the equivalent of a trial with oral testimony” ( [emphasis added]). However, plaintiff was not given such a hearing. It was given the opportunity for a hearing, but it chose not to exercise that opportunity.

Defendants’ reliance on is unavailing, since the evidence on the motion which led to the decision to which defendants seek to give preclusive effect was indeed restricted.

We do not find that “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in” France (see CPLR 327 [a]). “Generally, unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff‘s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed” ( [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). This is true even though plaintiff is not a New York resident (see ; ). The fact that defendants are New York residents weighs against forum non conveniens dismissal (see e.g. ). Even if some documents will have to be translated from French into English, that does not require dismissal (see e.g. ). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Wait, there are two more opinions starting on page 703. I should evaluate if OrthoTec is indeed the “main” one or if I should include the others. The prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... 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.” These are “Memorandum Decisions” from an official reporter. Usually, in these scenarios, each entry is a separate “opinion“. I will provide the first complete one, which is OrthoTec. Checking for Rosenfeld:

STEVEN ROSENFELD et al., Respondents, v RENIKA PTY. LTD. et al., Appellants.

[923 NYS2d 328]

Actually, OrthoTec is the primary one I‘ve started. It has a full caption and a reasoned opinion. Wait, I should confirm the citation for OrthoTec. The OCR says [924 NYS2d 78]. The OCR for Rosenfeld says [923 NYS2d 328]. The OCR for Hedge Fund says [923 NYS2d 838]. I will stick to OrthoTec as it is the first complete one. Final check on content: OCR of OrthoTec has a footnote marked with *. Text: “plaintiff cites no case where this principle was applied to a mo- tion to add a judgment debtor” -> “plaintiff cites no case where this principle was applied to a motion to add a judgment debtor” (rejoined hyphen). Text: “independent action . . . if. . . the moving party” -> “independent action . . . if . . . the moving party” (normalized spacing). Text: “Barker v Hull (191 Cal App 3d 221, 226, 236 Cal Rptr 285, 289 [1987]) is unavailing, since the evi- dence on the motion” -> “Barker v Hull (191 Cal App 3d 221, 226, 236 Cal Rptr 285, 289 [1987]) is unavailing, since the evidence on the motion” (rejoined hyphen). Metadata attributes: - `shortName=“OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capital, LLC“` - `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“` (Appellate Division, First Department) - `cite=“924 NYS2d 78“` One detail: the OCR for OrthoTec page 1 has “mo tion” and “inde pendent“. These are line-break artifacts. Page 1: “mo- tion” -> “motion” Page 1: “inde- pendent” -> “independent” Page 1: “evi- dence” -> “evidence” Page 2: “Anagnos- tou” -> “Anagnostou” Page 2: “Manzanet- Daniels” -> “Manzanet-Daniels” Page 2: “af- firmed” -> “affirmed” (in the Hedge Fund case, but not in OrthoTec). Let‘s re-verify page 703 text for OrthoTec. “Anagnos- tou v Stifel” -> “Anagnostou v Stifel“. “Manzanet- Daniels and Román, JJ.” -> “Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.” Wait, the footnote 1 text in OCR is “see v Brancoveanu, 246 AD2d 414, 416-417 [1998]). lonescu“. Looking at the image, it‘s “(see Ionescu v Brancoveanu, 246 AD2d 414, 416-417 [1998]).” OCR is garbled there. I will follow the image. The footnote mark in text is `.*` at “omitted]).*“. The footnote at the bottom: `* The preclusive effect...` Ready. One last check: `cite=“924 NYS2d 78“` is correct. Court: `Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department` Short name: `OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capital, LLC` (omitting et al.) Law citations: `CPLR 3211 (a) (5)` -> `N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(5)` `CPLR 327 [a]` -> `N.Y. C.P.L.R. 327(a)` Case citations: `Groves v Peterson, 100 Cal App 4th 659, 661, 123 Cal Rptr 2d 164, 165 [2002]` `Groves, 100 Cal App 4th at 667-668, 123 Cal Rptr 2d at 170` (short) `100 Cal App 4th at 668, 123 Cal Rptr 2d at 170-171` (short/id-like but cite provided) `Barker v Hull (191 Cal App 3d 221, 226, 236 Cal Rptr 285, 289 [1987])` `Ionescu v Brancoveanu, 246 AD2d 414, 416-417 [1998]` `Anagnostou v Stifel, 204 AD2d 61, 61 [1994]` `Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v Honeywell Intl. Inc., 48 AD3d 225, 226 [2008]` `Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 [2006]` `Anagnostou, 204 AD2d at 62` (short) `American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340 [2007]` Wait, the judge Melvin L. Schweitzer is for the “Supreme Court, New York County” which is the trial court. The metadata for the Appellate decision shouldn‘t usually list the trial judge unless specified. I‘ll include it in Case Information if needed, but the template has a `midpage-judge` field. Usually, for appellate courts, it‘s the appellate judges. Appellate judges: Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. I will put them in `midpage-judge`. ```html

ORTHOTEC, LLC, Appellant, v HEALTHPOINT CAPITAL, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, New York

[924 NYS2d 78]

Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

``` Wait, usually these cases are dated. Although not on the snippet, I‘ll omit `date` attribute to avoid hallucination, but I‘ll check if the 2009 date is the decision date. No, “entered November 27, 2009” refers to the judgment being reviewed. Final check on citations: - `jurisdiction=“NY“` for CPLR. - `jurisdiction=“CA“` for Cal. citations is not applicable (law citations are statutes, not cases). Cases use `midpage-case`. - Parallel citations for Cal cases: `100 Cal. App. 4th 659 | 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 164`. One specific rule: “Use & not &” for case names. The prompt says: “Case name (parties). Use & not &“. This is likely a typo in the instructions and means “Use & not &“. No, that‘s illogical. It probably means “Use & not &” as in literal ampersand? I‘ll use literal characters as the output is raw HTML. Wait, the instruction says: `case` | Yes* | Case name (parties). Use `&` not `&` | This is ambiguous. I‘ll use “and” or “&” as it appears in the text. In the text for OrthoTec, it says “and“. For Travelers, it says “&“. I will follow the text. Wait, the instruction “Use `&` not `&`” probably means “Use & not &“. I will just use & if it‘s in the case name string. One more thing: rejoin “Manzanet-Daniels” correctly. Page 702 bottom: “Anagnos-” Page 703 top: “tou” The marker `` should be inside the word boundary or right at it. “Anagnostou” Let‘s go.

Notes

*
The preclusive effect of a California decision is governed by California law (see ).