Beliavskaia v. Perkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beliavskaia v. Perkin

227 A.D.2d 246, 642 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5198

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

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 246 (Beliavskaia v. Perkin) 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

Beliavskaia v. Perkin, 227 A.D.2d 246, 642 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about December 21,1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preserve Ms. Beliavskaia’s testimony by videotape, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An affidavit showing unusual or unanticipated circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule foreclosing discovery after the filing of a note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]) was not required here since the relief sought was not in the nature of discovery (cf., Hill v Sheehan, 154 AD2d 912).

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about December 21,1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preserve Ms. Beliavskaia’s testimony by videotape, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An affidavit showing unusual or unanticipated circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule foreclosing discovery after the filing of a note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]) was not required here since the relief sought was not in the nature of discovery (cf., Hill v Sheehan, 154 AD2d 912).

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 246, 642 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beliavskaia-v-perkin-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack