BURGESS, II, JEROME v. MEYER, MALCOM
This text of 117 A.D.3d 1431 (BURGESS, II, JEROME v. MEYER, MALCOM) 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.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered June 17, 2013. The order, among other things, denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking to strike parts of a report submitted by defendants’ expert.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
*1432 Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of their motion seeking to strike parts of a report submitted by defendants’ expert. Before a note of issue was filed and before there was any expert disclosure between the parties (cf. Heyward v Shanne, 114 AD3d 1212, 1213-1214 [2014]), plaintiffs moved in part pursuant to CPLR 3103 and 22 NYCRR 100.3 (B) (5) for an order striking all references in the report “to socio-economic, eugenic, or other euthenics as an alternative intervening event sufficient to supersede cause.” We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion inasmuch as neither CPLR 3103 nor 22 NYCRR 100.3 (B) (5) authorizes the court to grant the relief sought by plaintiffs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
117 A.D.3d 1431, 984 N.Y.S.2d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-ii-jerome-v-meyer-malcom-nyappdiv-2014.