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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 9, 1987·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

127 A.D.2d 624 (Blankenship v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related