Bramble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bramble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

172 A.D.2d 793, 570 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5410

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

DecidedApril 29, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 793 (Bramble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) 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

Bramble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 172 A.D.2d 793, 570 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and damage to personal property, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 13, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs, within 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, shall serve upon the defendant and file with the Supreme Court, Kings County, copies of their unredacted expert affidavits.

Since it is readily apparent from the record that the plaintiffs mistakenly believed in good faith that they were not required to name their experts or their qualifications (cf., Rubenstein v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Center, 139 Misc 2d 349), we remit the matter to the Supreme Court in order to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to resubmit the affidavits from " 'named expert[s] which shall set forth [their] qualifications as * * * expert[s] and the evidentiary facts upon which [they base their] opinion’ ” (Maust v Arseneau, 116 AD2d 1012, [794]*7941013, quoting from Coley v Michelin Tire Corp., 88 AD2d 651). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and damage to personal property, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 13, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs, within 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, shall serve upon the defendant and file with the Supreme Court, Kings County, copies of their unredacted expert affidavits.

Since it is readily apparent from the record that the plaintiffs mistakenly believed in good faith that they were not required to name their experts or their qualifications (cf., Rubenstein v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Center, 139 Misc 2d 349), we remit the matter to the Supreme Court in order to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to resubmit the affidavits from " 'named expert[s] which shall set forth [their] qualifications as * * * expert[s] and the evidentiary facts upon which [they base their] opinion’ ” (Maust v Arseneau, 116 AD2d 1012, [794]*7941013, quoting from Coley v Michelin Tire Corp., 88 AD2d 651). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 793, 570 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bramble-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack