When reading an Appellate Division decision, the tone and subject matter rapidly indicate that the case is a pro-se legal malpractice litigation, as the participants spend inordinate amounts of time debating useless issues.  As an example, Hyman v Pierce 2016 NY Slip Op 08272 Decided on December 8, 2016 Appellate Division, Third Department deals entirely with appellate practice over the completely inane matter of whether some discovery was provided in paper or electronic form.  Plaintiff spend endless hours making motions and perfecting an appeal, when the same result could have been had by printing out the email.

“On January 5, 2015, plaintiff moved for an extension of time to complete discovery and to compel defendants to respond to certain document demands. In support of this motion, plaintiff submitted copies of correspondence wherein she requested that defendants produce a “copy of the complete file with an itemized table of contents of any and all unprivileged correspondences related in any manner” to her dealings with defendants and provide dates for depositions. Indisputably, defendants did not produce the requested documents, asserting that plaintiff already possessed the requested materials, and no depositions were completed. By an order entered in March 2015, Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to produce the requested documents, extended the existing schedule to allow the parties to complete depositions and directed plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from this order and an April 2015 order denying her motion to reargue.

On July 31, 2015, Supreme Court (Cercio Jr., J.) issued an order directing defendants to provide an electronic copy of the requested discovery material. Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants have complied with that order but, instead, asserts that she was entitled to a paper copy of the documents. Since plaintiff has obtained copies of the documents that she requested, albeit in electronic format, we agree with defendants that plaintiff’s appeal from the March 2015 order must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Jewett v Ames, 276 AD2d 892, 893 [2000]; Matter of Franklin [International Bus. Machs. Corp.], 215 AD2d 759, 759 [1995]; Middleton v State of New York, 49 AD2d 989, 989 [1975]).”