Court

New Posts

LISleuth said:
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013DEC/5100336832012100SCIV.pdf


Index Number: 033683/2012
The following case which you have subscribed to in eTrack has been updated. Changes from the last update are shown in red and are annotated.

Court: Suffolk Civil Supreme
Index Number: 033683/2012
Case Name: GILBERT, SHANNAN, ESTATE OF, vs. HACKET, CHARLES PETER, D.O.
Case Type: Medical Malpractice
Track: Complex
Upstate RJI Number:
Disposition Date:
Date NOI Due:
NOI Filed:
Calendar Number:
RJI Filed: 01/18/2013
Jury Status:
Justice Name: DANIEL MARTIN

Attorney/Firm for Plaintiff:
RAY, MITEV & ASSOCIATES
122 NO. COUNTRY RD, POB 5440
MILLER PLACE, NY 11764
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Status: Active

Attorney/Firm for Defendant:
O'ROURKE & HANSEN, PLLC
235 BROOKSITE DRIVE
HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Status: Active

Last Appearance:
Appearance Date: 05/07/2013
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome: Fully Submitted
Justice: DANIEL MARTIN
Part: MOTION PART 9
Comments:


Future Appearances: --- Information updated
Appearance Date: 03/18/2014 --- Information updated
Appearance Time: --- Information updated
On For: Supreme Initial (first time on) --- Information updated
Appearance Outcome: --- Information updated
Justice: DANIEL MARTIN --- Information updated
Part: PRELIMINARY CONF PART 9 --- Information updated
Comments: CTRM --- Information updated
PER SFO 12/10/13 --- Information updated


Older appearances may exist but are not shown.

Motions: Motion Number: 1
Date Filed: 01/16/2013
Filed By: DEF
Relief Sought: Dismissal
Submit Date: 05/07/2013
Answer Demanded: No
Status: Decided: 10-DEC-13
MOTION DECIDED
Before Justice: MARTIN
Decision: Short Form Order
Order Signed Date: 12/10/2013


Scanned Decisions: --- Information updated
Motion Number: 100 --- Information updated
Scanned On: 12/13/2013 --- Information updated
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update! Does that mean the judge didn't dismiss and it's beginning on March 18?
 
sleuthinforfun said:
Thanks for the update! Does that mean the judge didn't dismiss and it's beginning on March 18?
Click to expand...

I just noticed the PDF and read it. There was one motion he was granted, and that was the gross negligence, I believe. The rest of his motions were denied and he has until 1/15 to answer.
 
ps149 said:
Let's just say that the defense unintentionally did an excellent job proving that the doc has a long track record of telling lies and stretching the truth about himself for the sole purpose of making himself look like a hero. He also constantly injects himself into situations where he has no business just to also attempt to receive praise as a hero. As disturbing as these actions may be, they do not make him a killer. the defense did too good of a job proving that the doc makes up stories. So good of a job, that they created enough doubt to conclude that his words with Mari were most likely all lies and his claims to have treated SG also nothing but lies.

Total Failure. :tears:
Click to expand...

This is a civil suit. There is a plaintiff (MG) and defendant (CPH). The lawsuit filed contains motions first to show cause (by the plaintiff). Before any answer to cause, CPH filed a motion to dismiss, which the plaintiff answered to the LEGAL reasons why it should move forward taking into account what CPH claimed were the reasons to dismiss. The lawsuit hasn't even gotten to the point that you're talking about. There is no "burden of proof", it is the "preponderance of evidence" in a civil medical neglect case. After reading the judge's decision, it's pretty clear that CPH's lawyer didn't do a great job giving a legal basis for dismissal.
 
I wonder if the 911 call will come into this suit? It might be CPH's only defense (unless she said his name or something alluding to a neighborhood Dr.).
 
I had to read it several times to make sure I wasn't getting the jist wrong. The beginning reads as if the judge's answer was directed at CPH's Motion to Dismiss, but that's not the case. MG's lawsuit had 15 claims. Claims 9-15 are dismissed. 5 and 6 were also dismissed because the claim states SG died on/about May 1, 2010, but the ME report has the DOD as when her body was found. The statute of limitations is a year for claims 5 and 6.

When I first read it, it reads COMPLETELY different if it's answering the motion to dismiss.
 
LINative13 said:
Want to hear a twist? How about the CPH rumors are about as valid as the aquarium guy rumors.
Click to expand...

How are phone calls backed by evidence with phone records coupled with an admission by the accused that he was factually the person who spoke on the phone with MG "rumors"? The content of the call (that he treated SG in his home on May 1, 2010) has been consistently described by MG, but there are a couple (few?) versions (including in writing with his signature using his fax number) descriptions from CPH. Where is rumor in that?
 
sleuthinforfun said:
How are phone calls backed by evidence with phone records coupled with an admission by the accused that he was factually the person who spoke on the phone with MG "rumors"? The content of the call (that he treated SG in his home on May 1, 2010) has been consistently described by MG, but there are a couple (few?) versions (including in writing with his signature using his fax number) descriptions from CPH. Where is rumor in that?
Click to expand...

At this point I don't think they would have gotten into any evidence. They are just filing motions for now. We don't really know what evidence there is, or if there is any at all.

At best as far as I can see the only thing they will have is recollections from memory of things that happened a long time ago. It is easy for people to have gotten dates, times and details wrong and mixed up. There probably is no evidence that he saw her or treated her (which would be required to find culpability for wrongful death), so I doubt the lawsuit can succeed beyond the nuisance factor.

Under normal circumstances LE would have been interviewing people soon after the event (if she had been found a few days after she disappeared), so that would serve as a reference point for facts. But, they would only have really paid serious attention to SGs case when they found the other prostitutes bodies along the road, and that was much later. By then the accuracy of everyone's memories would be questionable. It is entirely possible that both sides are talking about the same event, just basing the actual dates on what phone records they had on hand.
 
One fact that sticks in my mind is fluke saying where the body would be found (in writing) months before it was.

I think the real killers will win this round. Lack of police work, lack of forensic evidence, dumping the women in an area where Babylonians are content with the killers disappearing or getting caught equally, some distracting self serving Internet BS...yup, the killers win.
 
LINative13 said:
One fact that sticks in my mind is fluke saying where the body would be found (in writing) months before it was.

I think the real killers will win this round. Lack of police work, lack of forensic evidence, dumping the women in an area where Babylonians are content with the killers disappearing or getting caught equally, some distracting self serving Internet BS...yup, the killers win.
Click to expand...

But we were talking SG's 911 call (that we still haven't heard and the most recent information from LE was that she said, "HE'S trying to kill me." I posted the link/quote on the 911 call thread) and MG saying CPH claimed he treated her daughter that is backed by phone records and a signed admission from CPH that he did speak with MG and you called it rumor. There's no rumor in those.

There's a large time period between the CPH/MG phone call and SG's body being discovered. What happened in that time period is not the basis for the lawsuit. IMO, it's based purely on that phone call. Anything in addition (as far as evidence and what's been said) is just more fuel to the fire started by CPH's call.

Tugela, there's a different set of evidence rules than in a criminal trial. The plaintiff (MG) doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
LINative13 said:
One fact that sticks in my mind is fluke saying where the body would be found (in writing) months before it was.

I think the real killers will win this round. Lack of police work, lack of forensic evidence, dumping the women in an area where Babylonians are content with the killers disappearing or getting caught equally, some distracting self serving Internet BS...yup, the killers win.
Click to expand...

BBM: Yeah that has stuck with me too. I personally find it very odd. If he was so sure where the body was, why didn't HE call in a tip? (Who knows, maybe he did) but, HOW could he possibly KNOW where the body was months before it was found? The guy (IMVHO) is strangely unstable!
 
Justiceforever said:
BBM: Yeah that has stuck with me too. I personally find it very odd. If he was so sure where the body was, why didn't HE call in a tip? (Who knows, maybe he did) but, HOW could he possibly KNOW where the body was months before it was found? The guy (IMVHO) is strangely unstable!
Click to expand...

I saw a screen shot that he wrote the C's backyard, which is diagonally across the street toward the front gate of the neighborhood (looking at Google Maps, it's up to the left of CPH's home if CPH's home is the center). It's not where the clothes or body were found.
 
Shocked that not one person commented on the court appearance three days ago.

We're going to trial folks!!

Opening statements to take place 9/16/14!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 102 more.
Total: 3,455 (members: 103, guests: 3,352)

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
3,352
Total visitors
3,455
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,290
Messages
17,966,750
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top