Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

November 20, 2009

The Danger of Inadvertent Admissions and the Importance of Careful Pleading

The Appellate Division, Third Department recently considered the effect of facts admitted in an original answer and subsequently denied in an amended answer in a medical malpractice action.

In Kwiecinski v. Hwang, the plaintiff alleged she was given the wrong drug in preparation for surgery. Defendants moved to amend their initial answer asserting that they inadvertently admitted to facts contained in two sentences of paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint when drafting their original answer. Specifically, in the beginning of paragraph 23, Plaintiff alleged (1) she "was supposed to receive Versed prior to surgery" and (2) "[i]nstead due to the gross negligence and recklessness of defendant[s], plaintiff was given a paralytic agent." In their answer, Defendants responded that "as to the allegations as contained in paragraph numbered 23 of the [c]omplaint, admit the first two sentences and deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations."

The lower court allowed Defendants to amend their answer and precluded the Plaintiff from using the admission in Defendants' initial answer at any stage of the litigation. On appeal, the Third Department held that the lower court erred in precluding the use of the admissions contained in the original answer.

The Appellate Division concluded that admissions in an original pleading superseded by an amended pleading remain as evidence of facts admitted. In other words, a fact admitted in the original pleading does not lose its effect as an admission simply because the pleading has been amended. As a result, the Defendant is left to explain the circumstances surrounding the inadvertent original admission at trial and the fact finder will then determine the weight to be afforded to the original admission.

This case underscores the importance of exercising great care in drafting pleadings.

If you require further information regarding the information presented in this Legal Alert and its impact on your organization, please contact any of the members of the Practice Area.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


Fourth Department Finds Language in 1980 Statute Is Gender Neutral for Purposes of Child Victims Act


Priority of Federal Tax Lien on Personal Property: Secured Lender vs. IRS


COVID-19 Business Interruption Update: New York High Court Affirms in Favor of Insurer


USFWS Introduces General Permit for Bald and Golden Eagle Incidental Take


ORES Executive Director Issues First Denial of Section 94-C Permit Application Following Applicant's Partial Loss of Site Control


New Details About OPWDD Spending in the New York State FY 2025 Executive Budget

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out