Burgess v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgess v. City of New York

167 A.D.2d 499, 562 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14307

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 499 (Burgess 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

Burgess v. City of New York, 167 A.D.2d 499, 562 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 14, 1989, as denied their cross motion "for continuation of the examination before trial” of the defendant Linden Plaza, Inc., and for production of certain records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s limitation of disclosure to those incidents that took place in the area of the ramp where the plaintiff was injured was within that court’s sound discretion and should not be disturbed (see, Kolody v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 163 AD2d 276; Zimmerman v New York City Tr. Auth., 115 AD2d 738; Jackson v Nelson, 81 AD2d 677; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5501.22). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 14, 1989, as denied their cross motion "for continuation of the examination before trial” of the defendant Linden Plaza, Inc., and for production of certain records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s limitation of disclosure to those incidents that took place in the area of the ramp where the plaintiff was injured was within that court’s sound discretion and should not be disturbed (see, Kolody v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 163 AD2d 276; Zimmerman v New York City Tr. Auth., 115 AD2d 738; Jackson v Nelson, 81 AD2d 677; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5501.22). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 499, 562 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack