Blankenship v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blankenship v. Schwartz

127 A.D.2d 624, 511 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43113

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 624 (Blankenship v. Schwartz) 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

Blankenship v. Schwartz, 127 A.D.2d 624, 511 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Ronald DeMeo and Carmine DeMeo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated October 31, 1985, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiffs to produce an authorization for the release of certain medical records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the record before us, we conclude that the appellants failed to demonstrate that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances” developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness, thereby warranting additional pretrial proceedings (see, Chaloupka v Neil’s Plumbing & Heating, 114 AD2d 833, 834; Di Maria v Coordinated Ranches, 114 AD2d 397; Ehrhart v County of Nassau, 106 AD2d 488; 22 NYCRR former 675.7, 103.4; now 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied the appellants’ motion. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Ronald DeMeo and Carmine DeMeo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated October 31, 1985, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiffs to produce an authorization for the release of certain medical records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the record before us, we conclude that the appellants failed to demonstrate that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances” developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness, thereby warranting additional pretrial proceedings (see, Chaloupka v Neil’s Plumbing & Heating, 114 AD2d 833, 834; Di Maria v Coordinated Ranches, 114 AD2d 397; Ehrhart v County of Nassau, 106 AD2d 488; 22 NYCRR former 675.7, 103.4; now 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied the appellants’ motion. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 624, 511 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenship-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack