Thought Leadership

In a significant ruling addressing concerns over fraudulent claims, the court granted the defendants’ motion to vacate the Note of Issue, remove the case from the trial calendar, and compel extensive discovery. The decision follows revelations from the defendants’ investigation, which uncovered troubling connections between the plaintiffs and other claimants in similar staged accidents. Citing the disturbing rise in fraudulent injury claims, the court emphasized the need for additional discovery.

The defendants filed an order to show cause seeking to vacate the Note of Issue, remove the case from the trial calendar, and compel discovery related to alleged fraudulent claims. 

To vacate a Note of Issue, a party must establish “unusual or unanticipated circumstances that arise after the filing of the Note of Issue, are beyond the party’s control, and result in actual prejudice.” Audiovox Corp. v. Benyamini, 265 A.D.2d 135, 138-39 (2d Dep’t 2000); see also Valencia v. City of New York, 188 A.D.3d 549, 550 (1st Dep’t 2020). 

The defendants presented evidence from their ongoing investigation, revealing multiple social media connections between the plaintiffs and the claimants in similar accidents. It was also demonstrated that the plaintiffs and the claimants used the same medical providers in RICO claims to fabricate injuries. The plaintiffs argued that the defense was aware of these connections before the Note of Issue was filed and, therefore, the standard for vacatur was not met.

The court disagreed and granted the defendants’ motion in full, calling the allegations in this case and the rise in staged accidents “disturbing.” 

The court also ordered the plaintiff to comply with the defendants’ discovery demands, including litigation finance agreements, depositions of police and EMS personnel, social media and phone records, depositions of related claimants, depositions of the plaintiffs’ former employers, fraud-related depositions of the plaintiffs, additional independent medical examinations (IMEs) such as independent radiology studies, and depositions of the plaintiffs’ medical providers. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}