Amherst Magnetic Imaging Associates, P. C. v. Community Blue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amherst Magnetic Imaging Associates, P. C. v. Community Blue

262 A.D.2d 1082, 692 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7355

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 1082 (Amherst Magnetic Imaging Associates, P. C. v. Community Blue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amherst Magnetic Imaging Associates, P. C. v. Community Blue, 262 A.D.2d 1082, 692 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In the absence of special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Supreme Court lacked discretion to order defendants to comply with plaintiffs demand for expert disclosure, served after the note of issue was filed [1083]*1083(see, Melanson v Caggiano, 251 AD2d 1059; Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862). The fact that other discovery had been conducted by agreement of counsel does not constitute a special, unusual or extraordinary circumstance (see, Armatys v Edwards, 229 AD2d 906, 907). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J. — Discovery.) Present — Law-ton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In the absence of special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Supreme Court lacked discretion to order defendants to comply with plaintiffs demand for expert disclosure, served after the note of issue was filed [1083]*1083(see, Melanson v Caggiano, 251 AD2d 1059; Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862). The fact that other discovery had been conducted by agreement of counsel does not constitute a special, unusual or extraordinary circumstance (see, Armatys v Edwards, 229 AD2d 906, 907). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J. — Discovery.) Present — Law-ton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 1082, 692 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amherst-magnetic-imaging-associates-p-c-v-community-blue-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack