Bork v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bork v. City of New York

237 A.D.2d 218, 655 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2918

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 218 (Bork v. City of New York) 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

Bork v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 218, 655 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff, "[i]n the event that [he] decides to produce a vocational expert to testify to his inability or limited ability to be employed”, to produce a copy of his vocational expert’s report and to submit to an examination by defendant’s vocational expert, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The subject preliminary conference order is nonappealable since it was not made on notice (see, Everitt v Health Maintenance Ctr., 86 AD2d 224). Were we to consider the merits, we would affirm, finding no improvident exercise of discretion by the motion court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Tom, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff, "[i]n the event that [he] decides to produce a vocational expert to testify to his inability or limited ability to be employed”, to produce a copy of his vocational expert’s report and to submit to an examination by defendant’s vocational expert, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The subject preliminary conference order is nonappealable since it was not made on notice (see, Everitt v Health Maintenance Ctr., 86 AD2d 224). Were we to consider the merits, we would affirm, finding no improvident exercise of discretion by the motion court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 218, 655 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bork-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack