Upon the foregoing papers, defendants move (006 & 007) for an order, pursuant to the Court's inherent authority and CPLR 3126, dismissing the complaint for plaintiff's alleged fraud upon the Court or, in the alternative, striking plaintiff's pleadings and/or precluding plaintiff from offering expert testimony for purported willful noncompliance with discovery and expert disclosure orders. After a hearing (Lorna Coley-Walker, Senior Court Reporter [November 18, 2025]), the motions are consolidated for disposition and decided as follows.

This is a long-running medical malpractice action with a convoluted procedural history, marked by extended delays, multiple changes in counsel, and lengthy periods during which plaintiff proceeded pro se. The present motions do not turn on the merits of the underlying [*2]malpractice allegations; they arise from defendants' contention that plaintiff submitted and relied upon a purported expert letter attributed to Dr. Anna Serur that was altered to suggest Dr. Serur agreed to serve as plaintiff's medical expert, when she allegedly did not.

Because defendants' request for the extreme remedy of dismissal turned on disputed issues of authenticity and intent, and because plaintiff contested the fraud allegations, the Court directed an evidentiary hearing (Gerez, J. [April 29, 2024]). Due to the unavailability of Justice Alicia Gerez, this Court held the evidentiary hearing (see 22 NYCRR § 202.3 [c]) at which Dr. Serur, plaintiff, and plaintiff's witness Felipe Candelaria testified, and the challenged letter and related materials were received in evidence.

Defendants contend that plaintiff perpetrated a fraud upon the Court by submitting an altered letter falsely attributed to Dr. Serur. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below.

Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff inserted, or caused to be inserted, the sentence "I well [sic] be Maria Perez [sic] medical expert if needed in her case," and then presented that letter to the Court as genuine in order to satisfy directives requiring plaintiff to identify an expert willing to testify on her behalf. In defendants' view, this conduct struck at the integrity of the judicial process and warrants dismissal.

Dr. Serur testified that she is a licensed physician and the chief of colon and rectal surgery at Englewood Health. She first treated plaintiff Maria Perez while practicing at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, and she continued treating plaintiff after moving to New Jersey in 2017, when plaintiff "followed" her to Englewood. Dr. Serur explained that plaintiff repeatedly asked her to review prior medical records and to opine on whether prior providers were negligent, but Dr. Serur told plaintiff that she would not "pass judgment" on prior treatment and would only speak to her own care. She further testified that plaintiff persistently asked her to serve as an expert witness, and Dr. Serur repeatedly and emphatically refused, agreeing only to summarize the care she rendered.

Dr. Serur testified that she had "major problems" with the December 1, 2017, letter attributed to her because it represented that she would be plaintiff's expert when she had repeatedly told plaintiff she would not. She identified the specific language that appeared in the letter as an inserted, bolded sentence and testified that she did not write or authorize that addition. Dr. Serur further testified that the inserted sentence contradicted her direct statements to plaintiff, contained spelling, grammar, and syntax errors that she would not write or sign, and appeared "squeezed" between paragraphs in a manner her office would not use because it would instead edit or retype the letter professionally.

Felipe Candelaria testified that he has known plaintiff since approximately 2011 and is her friend. He testified that, in 2017, plaintiff asked him to drive her to Dr. Serur's office in Englewood to pick up a letter, and that plaintiff asked him to read the letter because she could not. He testified that after he read the first letter, plaintiff said it was insufficient and returned it to an office staff member.

Mr. Candelaria testified that the staff member went into a back room for approximately 10 to 15 minutes and then returned with a "fixed" letter. He testified that the second letter was the same as the first except that it contained an added bold sentence near the bottom that appeared "squeezed" between paragraphs, and that the sentence was not present in the first version. He testified that he did not see Dr. Serur that day, did not see anyone sign a letter, and could not identify the staff member by name.

Plaintiff testified that she treated with Dr. Serur at Maimonides and continued with her after Dr. Serur moved to New Jersey. Plaintiff testified that while she was self-represented, the Court suggested that she ask Dr. Serur whether she could serve as an expert in this case. Plaintiff further testified that Dr. Serur discussed plaintiff's prior care and agreed that she would serve as plaintiff's medical expert if needed.

Plaintiff testified that Dr. Serur was not present when plaintiff went to pick up the December 1, 2017 letter, that a staff member provided the letter, and that plaintiff asked her companion to read it. Plaintiff testified that she told the staff member the letter did not say what she needed, that the staff member went back, and that a revised letter was produced containing the bolded sentence. On cross-examination, plaintiff testified that she did not know whom the staff member spoke with, did not see the staff member on the phone, and could not explain how the revised letter was generated if Dr. Serur was not present to sign it. Plaintiff denied inserting the bolded sentence herself. She was asked by the Court to read the sentence aloud and took no issue with any spelling or grammatical errors.

The Court possesses both inherent authority to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the statutory authority under CPLR 3126 to impose sanctions, including striking pleadings, where a party engages in willful misconduct that undermines the truth-seeking function of the court (see CDR Créances S.A.S. v Cohen, 23 NY3d 307, 318-320 [2014]). In CDR Créances, the Court of Appeals adopted a clear and convincing standard, holding that fraud on the court requires proof that the offending party "acted knowingly" to hinder the fact finder's fair adjudication and the adversary's defense, and that the misconduct concerns issues central to the truth-finding process (id. at 320-321). The Court further rejected any requirement that fraud be "conclusively demonstrated" as unworkable (id. at 322-323).

The Court credits Dr. Serur's unequivocal testimony that she repeatedly refused plaintiff's requests that she serve as an expert witness and that she did not write, authorize, or sign any letter stating otherwise. The physical exhibit reinforces that testimony: the added sentence appears as a conspicuous, bold insertion "squeezed" between paragraphs, with poor grammar and syntax inconsistent with professional writing. Her testimony was measured, internally consistent, and consistent with the documentary evidence.

By contrast, the Court finds plaintiff Maria Perez and Felipe Candelaria not credible based upon their demeanor and manner of testifying, the cadence and responsiveness of their answers, and the internal logic of their account when measured against the physical exhibit. Their narrative requires the Court to accept that an office staff member "fixed" the letter by inserting a highly consequential sentence—without the physician's authorization—yet somehow produced a document that appeared unprofessional, with poor grammar, awkward phrasing, and a conspicuously "squeezed" insertion inconsistent with a physician's office preparing a formal letter for litigation. The exhibit itself corroborates Dr. Serur's testimony and undermines plaintiff's account.

On this record, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff knowingly submitted and relied upon the altered letter to mislead the Court and defendants into believing that she had secured Dr. Serur as a medical expert. The Court rejects as implausible the claim that an unidentified staff member, without the physician's presence or authorization, generated the poorly written, highly consequential sentence.

This misconduct went to the heart of the Court's truth-seeking function. Plaintiff knowingly submitted a falsified letter. A litigant who willfully fabricates or falsifies evidence to influence judicial action may forfeit the right to have the controversy decided on the merits, because such conduct "strikes a discordant chord and threatens the integrity of the legal system as a whole" (CDR Créances, 23 NY3d at 318, 321). That forfeiture is found here.

The Court considered whether a lesser sanction could adequately address the misconduct and protect the integrity of these proceedings. It could not. There has been an extraordinary expenditure of judicial resources occasioned by plaintiff's misconduct. This action has languished for years, with repeated conferences and repeated opportunities—often accompanied by explicit warnings—for plaintiff to identify a qualified expert. This action has been managed at various times by multiple Justices of this Court. The record reflects the undersigned is at least the fifth Justice to be required to take up significant issues in this matter. Plaintiff's fraud consumed significant judicial resources, further delayed already protracted litigation, and undermined confidence that this matter can proceed fairly. In these circumstances, any lesser sanction would fail to protect the integrity of the process. The only proportionate remedy is to strike the complaint and dismiss the action. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that motion sequences 006 and 007 are granted to the extent that the complaint is stricken, and this action is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that the alternative branches of the motions seeking relief under CPLR 3126 are denied as academic; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.