Attorney Profiles: Partners

Amanda L. Tate is a Partner at the firm, and started her career at DSMF. She takes pride in being a zealous advocate on behalf of all clients, inclusive of physicians and hospital systems, in multifaceted medical malpractice actions and health care litigation. She brings a creative and dynamic approach to her practice, by exploring early resolution, as well dismissal of actions prior to trial.

Ms. Tate’s innovative thinking and attention to detail allows her to create a comprehensive legal strategy from the initial stages of litigation, which continues throughout the entirety of the case. In both state and federal courts, she has a high success rate in dispositive motion practice, including summary judgment and matters that are adjudicated pre-suit. Her practice includes defending clients in complex surgical cases, those involving allegations of failure to timely diagnose cancer and other cases involving catastrophic personal injuries.

Ms. Tate has also employed the same effective strategies to her appellate practice, having achieved favorable outcomes for her clients at the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.

Further, she has obtained desirable outcomes during her representation of physicians and health care professionals in challenging professional disciplinary proceedings before the New York State Department of Health.

Additionally, Ms. Tate’s experience extends to the defense of clients in premises liability, automobile and Labor Law matters. Further, Ms. Tate has represented clients in various aspects of family law, inclusive of contentious custody proceedings.

• University of Connecticut, B.A., 2004
• Albany Law School of Union University, 2009

• New York, 2010
• United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts, 2012
• Massachusetts, 2020

• Selected to Super Lawyers – 2021
• Selected to Super Lawyers Rising Stars – 2017 - 2020
• New York State Bar Association – Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules – Member
• Westchester County Bar Association
• Massachusetts Bar Association

Court of Appeals
Unanimous 7-0 Court of Appeals decision affirming the Appellate Division’s determination that personal jurisdiction over out-of-state physicians and a foreign corporation could not be conferred pursuant to the long-arm statute of the CPLR. Respondents successfully argued that there were not enough minimum contacts to constitute transacting business, notwithstanding several email communications and physician orders that occurred prior to and during the time of appellant’s initial surgical procedure, which was performed out of state. Moreover, respondents argued the facility’s website was passive in nature and potential customers were unable to transact business on its site, eliminating any reasonable anticipation that the out-of-state facility and its physicians would have in connection with a suit being initiated in the forum state of New York.

Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals denied a motion seeking leave to appeal an Appellate Division’s order, which affirmed a trial court judgment of a jury verdict in favor of a defendant hospital involving an issue that appellant contended set forth reversible error. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in not allowing for an evidentiary hearing, which may have yielded an admission of photographs to prove that a decedent suffered from a medical condition at the time of her death. In this case, respondent reiterated that the appellant’s argument was based upon supposition and, as echoed by a unanimous Appellate Division bench, the jury was able to reach a defense verdict in light of the overwhelming additional evidence that was presented by defendants at trial. Respondent was able to articulate that not only was appellant’s contention not a novel issue, warranting review by the Court of Appeals, but that reversal of the Appellate Division decision was not proper.

Appellate Division, Second Department
Respondents successfully opposed an appeal to the Appellate Division to set aside trial verdict for the defense in connection with claims that the defense expert testimony was based upon “junk science” and that the defense expert disclosure was not sufficient. Respondents argued that the expert was permitted to testify at trial following a Frye Hearing and that the appellants were on notice of the expected testimony, pursuant to the content of the expert disclosure previously served in advance of trial. Respondents further pointed out the insufficiency of appellants’ contentions by reiterating that the literature that supported the expert’s position was revealed at the Frye Hearing, affording the appellants an opportunity at that point to challenge the literature’s sufficiency and the expert’s expected testimony. Leave to appeal the Appellate Division, Second Department’s decision was denied by the Court of Appeals, given our strong opposition to appellants’ subsequent motion.

Supreme Court, Kings County
Achieved summary judgment on a pressure ulcer case in 2021, involving a defendant hospital system and treatment that spanned over three weeks, even where it was undisputed that the ulcer arose under defendant’s care. Defendant was able to point out, through the use of evidentiary support in the records, as well as an artfully crafted expert affirmation that defendant did not deviate from the standard of care, and included alternate explanations for the etiology of the purported injuries.