Insights
The New York Appellate Division’s First PSQIA Decision Denies Privilege Protection
May 5, 2026
Julia Audibert is a member of Wilson Elser’s national Appellate practice, where she serves as a key resource for briefing and arguing appeals across a wide range of substantive legal areas. Julia plays an integral role in shaping case strategy from the pre-trial stage through trial, often assisting with drafting complex motions and preserving issues for appeal. She handles matters in all New York appellate divisions, the New Jersey appellate courts, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Prior to joining Wilson Elser, Julia worked at a metropolitan New York litigation defense firm. Previously, she was a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Daniel Roberts of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, in the Criminal and Family Divisions. During law school, Julia gained valuable insight into criminal and civil law matters and court procedures through internships at the Office of the New York State Attorney General, the Center for Children’s Advocacy in Hartford, Connecticut, the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General, and the Connecticut Public Defender’s Office.
General Liability & Labor Law
Julia has successfully managed a high-volume caseload of general liability and labor law matters, providing her with a comprehensive understanding of litigation from inception through resolution. This hands-on experience informs her appellate work and strengthens her ability to identify and mitigate issues before they arise on appeal.
The Honorable Daniel Roberts of the New Jersey Superior Court, Union County, Criminal and Family Division
New York Women's Bar Association, Litigation Committee Cochair
Stephanie Freeman (Partner-New York, NY) secured summary judgment in the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for Wilson Elser’s clients, a hospital and its ophthalmologist employee, in a medical malpractice action arising from cataract and vision correction surgeries. The plaintiff underwent cataract and vision correction surgery that failed to improve her vision, followed by revision surgery that left her with complications. But, as demonstrated by the submission Stephanie prepared and the accompanying expert affirmation supporting the care rendered, the clients’ care and treatment rendered fully conformed to the applicable standard of care. As the defense expert acknowledged, a corrective lens predicted to be the appropriate strength for a patient can sometimes prove to be the wrong strength despite proper care. Similarly, complications can arise during surgery in the absence of negligence ‒ and that is what occurred here.
The plaintiff’s expert nevertheless argued that the clients had erroneously selected the lens because it ultimately proved to be the wrong strength. Stephanie successfully exposed the hindsight inherent in that argument: the fact that an outcome was unsuccessful does not establish that the care was negligent. The court agreed, granting summary judgment to Wilson Elser’s physician client and hospital, and dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff appealed both the summary judgment order and the resulting judgment. Judy Selmeci (|Partner-New York, NY) and Julia Audibert (Associate-New York, NY) prepared the appellate brief, continuing to emphasize that the plaintiff had failed to identify any departure from the standard of care. Patrick Lawless (Partner-New York, NY) handled the oral argument, where the appellate team’s arguments were well received. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the summary judgment order and affirmed the judgment, leaving the victory for Wilson Elser’s clients intact.
Stephanie F. Freeman, Julia Audibert, Judy C. Selmeci and Patrick J. Lawless
Chris Peticca (Associate-White Plains, NY) defended a hospital in a case in which the plaintiff pled that the our client’s conduct was “careless” and “reckless,” and negligent. In conferences and, ultimately, by motion submitted on the court’s invitation, Chris convinced Judge Frishman (Bronx County) to strike the “careless” and “reckless” language from the pleadings. The plaintiff appealed. On the appeal handled by Julia Audibert (Associate-New York, NY) and Judy Selmeci (Partner-New York, NY), the plaintiff challenged the timeliness of the motion and argued that the possibility of punitive damages lingers, including pursuant to Pub. H. Law 2801-d. We pointed out in response that none of that is right, arguing that the motion was made when the judge invited the defendant to submit it, so it was entirely within the court’s discretion to entertain the motion. In addition, Julia and Judy argued, the defendant is not a residential health care facility, so PHL 2801-d is not applicable. In addition, the plaintiff had not pled any facts to support a punitive claim and there could be no dispute that the language was prejudicial, and an order striking prejudicial language from pleadings is not appealable and the plaintiff had not sought leave to appeal. The First Department agreed that the order was not appealable but sua sponte granted the plaintiff leave to appeal – only to then agree with all of our other points and affirm.
Christopher J. Peticca, Julia Audibert and Judy C. Selmeci