Buhler v. Sheridan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buhler v. Sheridan

134 A.D.2d 822, 521 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50971

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 1987·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

— Appeal unanimously dismissed with costs. Memorandum: We hold that an order deferring determination of a motion to compel discovery until after an in camera inspection of certain materials by the court does not affect a substantial right (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; cf., Howell v Independent Union, 112 AD2d 754; Bagdy v Progresso Foods Corp., 86 AD2d 589). A party aggrieved by an order entered after the court’s in camera inspection may take an appeal (see, Matter of Summers v Faust, 110 AD2d 643). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Donovan, J. — discovery.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Respondent. JJ.

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

— Appeal unanimously dismissed with costs. Memorandum: We hold that an order deferring determination of a motion to compel discovery until after an in camera inspection of certain materials by the court does not affect a substantial right (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; cf., Howell v Independent Union, 112 AD2d 754; Bagdy v Progresso Foods Corp., 86 AD2d 589). A party aggrieved by an order entered after the court’s in camera inspection may take an appeal (see, Matter of Summers v Faust, 110 AD2d 643). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Donovan, J. — discovery.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Respondent. JJ.

Buhler v. Sheridan, 134 A.D.2d 822, 521 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

134 A.D.2d 822 (Buhler v. Sheridan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related