Court Strikes Errata Sheet Corrections

            In Murillo v. The City of N.Y. (155467/2014, NYLJ 1202776765237, decided December 16, 2016), a personal injury case, the New York County Supreme Court held that a plaintiff's corrections made on errata sheets for his deposition transcript should be stricken as they were improper.  Particularly, the defendant made a motion requesting the Court to strike the plaintiff's errata sheet corrections, contending the following: that plaintiff failed to provide any explanations for the changes as required by CPLR Rule 3116(a); that the errata sheet corrections were not accompanied by an affidavit from a Spanish translator; and that the changes are so substantive in nature that they materially alter his testimony.  In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted two sets of errata sheets, one in Spanish and one in English, each signed and acknowledged by plaintiff; plaintiff's submission was also accompanied by an affidavit from a person who certified that he or she was fluent in Spanish and English, and that the errata sheets were translated from Spanish to English.

            The Court granted the defendant's motion, and held, among other things, the following: "It is undisputed that plaintiff's errata sheets, as initially served, are improper under the statute as none of the changes are accompanied by an explanation or a reason for the change...As for the second submission, the Court notes that it is technically untimely under CPLR Rule 3116(a), which states that '[n]o changes to the transcript may be made by the witness more than sixty days after the submission to the witness for examination.'  Here, the deadline for plaintiff's changes was April 7, 2016, yet the explanations to plaintiff's EBT changes and affidavit of translation were e-filed with his first set of opposition papers on April 12, 2016.  Although the Court may extend time under CPLR Section 2004, such relief is appropriate only upon a showing of good cause...Even though the second submission is untimely by a mere few days, plaintiff failed to give any justification for the delay in providing reasons or explanations for the EBT changes. Therefore, the motions could be granted on this basis alone."

Salvatore R. Marino, Esq.