Clemons v. Glicksman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clemons v. Glicksman

25 A.D.3d 468, 808 N.Y.S.2d 663

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 468 (Clemons v. Glicksman) 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

Clemons v. Glicksman, 25 A.D.3d 468, 808 N.Y.S.2d 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 25, 2005, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew an earlier order of the same court and Justice, entered November 8, 2004, and to preclude the deposition of Dr. Rudelli, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While “new facts” existed to support a motion for renewal, viz., Dr. Rudelli’s alleged retention as an expert by plaintiff, this retention would not “change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) since an expert may always be deposed “upon a showing of special circumstances” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 25, 2005, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew an earlier order of the same court and Justice, entered November 8, 2004, and to preclude the deposition of Dr. Rudelli, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While “new facts” existed to support a motion for renewal, viz., Dr. Rudelli’s alleged retention as an expert by plaintiff, this retention would not “change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) since an expert may always be deposed “upon a showing of special circumstances” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 468, 808 N.Y.S.2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clemons-v-glicksman-nyappdiv-2006.