Brodsky v. Selden Sanitary Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodsky v. Selden Sanitary Corp.

83 A.D.2d 845, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15225

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 845 (Brodsky v. Selden Sanitary Corp.) 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

Brodsky v. Selden Sanitary Corp., 83 A.D.2d 845, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to declare that the sewer rates charged by defendant Selden Sanitary Corp. for the period January 1,1977 to January 1,1978 were illegally and improperly collected and to enjoin said defendant from collecting said rates, defendant Selden appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated November 28, 1980, as denied its motion to compel plaintiffs Brodsky and Lunden to respond to certain questions propounded at an examination before trial. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. In effect, defendant Selden’s application “was one ‘seeking rulings on an examination before trial’ (Klein v Schneiderman, 58 AD2d 763). Orders made upon questions propounded at an examination before trial are not appealable as of right” (see Siegal v Arnao, 61 AD2d 812). No application for leave to appeal has been made in the case at bar and we would not have granted leave to appeal had such a request been made. We have, however, examined the merits and have concluded that we would affirm the order insofar as appealed from if the appeal were not being dismissed. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to declare that the sewer rates charged by defendant Selden Sanitary Corp. for the period January 1,1977 to January 1,1978 were illegally and improperly collected and to enjoin said defendant from collecting said rates, defendant Selden appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated November 28, 1980, as denied its motion to compel plaintiffs Brodsky and Lunden to respond to certain questions propounded at an examination before trial. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. In effect, defendant Selden’s application “was one ‘seeking rulings on an examination before trial’ (Klein v Schneiderman, 58 AD2d 763). Orders made upon questions propounded at an examination before trial are not appealable as of right” (see Siegal v Arnao, 61 AD2d 812). No application for leave to appeal has been made in the case at bar and we would not have granted leave to appeal had such a request been made. We have, however, examined the merits and have concluded that we would affirm the order insofar as appealed from if the appeal were not being dismissed. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 845, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodsky-v-selden-sanitary-corp-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack