Blake v. Czysz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. Czysz

283 A.D.2d 943, 723 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4582

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Terry R. Blake (plaintiff) or his representative from audiotaping or otherwise recording the independent medical examination of plaintiff (see, Parsons v Hytech Tool & Die, 241 AD2d 936, 937; Savarese v Yonkers Motors Corp., 205 AD2d 463, 463-464). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, McCarthy, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Terry R. Blake (plaintiff) or his representative from audiotaping or otherwise recording the independent medical examination of plaintiff (see, Parsons v Hytech Tool & Die, 241 AD2d 936, 937; Savarese v Yonkers Motors Corp., 205 AD2d 463, 463-464). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, McCarthy, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Blake v. Czysz, 283 A.D.2d 943, 723 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 943 (Blake v. Czysz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related