Opinion ID: 788144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fensterstock Affidavit

Text: 7 In its decision on liability, the District Court indicated that because [t]he parties here do not contest that MKM, as Rubens's counsel, owes [her] a duty, it focused only on the issues of breach and proximate cause. Before addressing each claim of negligence specifically, the court stated its conclusion, based almost entirely on Fensterstock's affidavit: 8 Fensterstock, however, as the sole decisionmaker in the arbitration, provides a sworn statement that MKM's allegedly negligent behavior would have had no effect on the outcome of the arbitration. ( See Fensterstock Aff.). Even assuming that MKM was negligent in its representation of Rubens, in light of Fensterstock's affidavit, no reasonable jury could conclude that Rubens would have prevailed at arbitration. 9 Rubens v. Mason, No. 01civ5004, 2003 WL 22234704, at  (S.D.N.Y. Sept.30, 2003) (emphasis added). The court then addressed each of Rubens's allegations of negligence. With regard to Rubens's claims that the defendants were negligent in admitting the chlamydia test results, failing to call certain witnesses, disclosing witnesses in an untimely fashion, and failing to introduce the Reichel presumption, the court reiterated its reliance on Fensterstock's affidavit to determine that no reasonable jury could conclude that Rubens is able to prove either a breach of the duty to use reasonable care or proximate causation and that summary judgment in the defendants' favor was proper. As for Rubens's claim that the defendants misunderstood that the results of the Trust's chlamydia test were negative, the District Court found that although Mason did describe the Trust's test results as `positive' he elicited testimony to the effect that a positive result could result from cross-reactivity rather than the presence of genital chlamydia. The court concluded, however, that [e]ven assuming that Mason was confused and misinterpreted the Trust's test results as being positive, Fensterstock put such little weight on both sets of chlamydia test results that the alleged error would not have changed the ultimate result. Id. at .