Caraballo v. New York Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caraballo v. New York Hospital

170 A.D.2d 190

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 190 (Caraballo v. New York Hospital) 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

Caraballo v. New York Hospital, 170 A.D.2d 190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about December 11, 1989, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for further oral examinations before trial of defendants Vincent James and Kenneth Tanabe, unanimously dismissed as nonappealable, with costs.

The courts of this State have repeatedly held that an order on an application to review objections raised at an examination before trial is not appealable as of right (Sainz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 106 AD2d 500). Here, plaintiffs’ motion for a further examination before trial was, in effect, an application seeking rulings on an examination before trial.

Were we to consider plaintiffs’ contentions, we would find that the ruling challenged by the plaintiffs, denying further discovery, was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion (Hirschfeld v Hirschfeld, 69 NY2d 842, 844). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about December 11, 1989, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for further oral examinations before trial of defendants Vincent James and Kenneth Tanabe, unanimously dismissed as nonappealable, with costs.

The courts of this State have repeatedly held that an order on an application to review objections raised at an examination before trial is not appealable as of right (Sainz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 106 AD2d 500). Here, plaintiffs’ motion for a further examination before trial was, in effect, an application seeking rulings on an examination before trial.

Were we to consider plaintiffs’ contentions, we would find that the ruling challenged by the plaintiffs, denying further discovery, was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion (Hirschfeld v Hirschfeld, 69 NY2d 842, 844). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caraballo-v-new-york-hospital-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack