Rivera v. Anilesh, 8 N.Y.3d 627 (2007)
Evidence of a routine practice is admissible to infer conduct on a specific occasion if the practice is deliberate, repetitive, and the person is in complete control of the circumstances.
Summary
This case addresses whether a dentist’s routine procedure for administering anesthetic injections is admissible as habit evidence to support an inference that the same procedure was used on a specific patient. The plaintiff alleged malpractice related to an injection. The dentist, while not specifically recalling the procedure, described her standard injection protocol. The Court of Appeals held that the dentist’s testimony regarding her routine injection procedure was admissible as habit evidence because the procedure was a deliberate and repetitive practice, performed frequently and consistently, thus creating a triable issue of fact as to whether malpractice occurred.
Facts
Plaintiff Margarita Rivera was a patient of Defendant Dr. Indu Anilesh. On May 4, 2000, Rivera visited Dr. Anilesh for a tooth extraction. Dr. Anilesh administered a local anesthetic via injection. Rivera claimed she felt pain during a second injection, like an electric shock. Rivera later developed an infection. Rivera sued, alleging negligent injection and extraction. Dr. Anilesh couldn’t specifically recall the procedure but described her routine injection technique, performed on multiple patients daily since 1982. She stated that second injections were needed in 15-20% of her cases.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted Dr. Anilesh’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Dr. Anilesh’s testimony about her customary practice was inadmissible. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a dentist’s routine procedure for administering an anesthetic injection is admissible as habit evidence to support an inference that the same procedure was used when treating a patient, even if the dentist doesn’t specifically recall the procedure.
Holding
Yes, because the dentist demonstrated a deliberate and repetitive practice in complete control of the circumstances, making the habit evidence admissible to infer conduct on a specific occasion.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on Halloran v Virginia Chems., stating, “evidence of habit has, since the days of the common-law reports, generally been admissible to prove conformity on specified occasions” because “one who has demonstrated a consistent response under given circumstances is more likely to repeat that response when the circumstances arise again.” The Court emphasized that the doctrine applies when proof demonstrates “a deliberate and repetitive practice” by a person “in complete control of the circumstances.” The court distinguished this from conduct that varies depending on circumstances. Dr. Anilesh’s testimony indicated a routine injection procedure performed thousands of times. The court found no evidence suggesting the procedure varied based on patient circumstances. The court concluded that Dr. Anilesh’s habit evidence shifted the burden to Rivera to create an issue of fact as to whether Dr. Anilesh committed malpractice. Rivera met this burden through her testimony of experiencing extreme pain during the second injection, coupled with her expert’s opinion that such pain indicated improper administration. This raised a factual issue for trial regarding negligence and causation of the infection. The court noted, “the key criteria are ‘adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response.’”