Carmody v. New York University

Background

At ECF Nos. 171, 172, and 199, the defendants sought to prevent Dr. Carmody from introducing certain text messages and e-mails into evidence at trial. The court referred to a March 13 conference and noted that William Chiang would testify at trial.

Rulings on the Evidence

The court ruled that the e-mail from Dr. Woo identified at ECF No. 172-1 at 11 was inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered as evidence of what it asserts, and it is generally excluded unless an exception applies.

The court ruled that the text-message exchange between Dr. Carmody and Dr. Jordan Swartz identified at ECF No. 172-1 at 2–5 was admissible in part under the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule. The court explained that Dr. Swartz was employed by New York University as an attending physician and was discussing conduct that he and other attending physicians engaged in at the hospital during their employment. The court held that his statement about his job duties was a party admission even though he was not a supervisor or decisionmaker.

Specifically, the court ruled that the two text messages at ECF No. 172-1 at 4 discussing “professional misconduct” as “conduct that we all do”—Dr. Carmody’s text and Dr. Swartz’s response—were admissible. The court ruled that the other portions of the text-message exchange were inadmissible hearsay.

Disposition

The order determines the admissibility of the specified e-mail and text messages for trial. It does not state that the case itself was dismissed or otherwise terminated.