Curtis v. Fishkill Allsport Fitness & Racquetball Club, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curtis v. Fishkill Allsport Fitness & Racquetball Club, Inc.

2 A.D.3d 768, 769 N.Y.S.2d 411

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 768 (Curtis v. Fishkill Allsport Fitness & Racquetball Club, Inc.) 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

Curtis v. Fishkill Allsport Fitness & Racquetball Club, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 768, 769 N.Y.S.2d 411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Tolbert, J.), dated March 14, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude him from introducing testimony of a certain nonparty witness at trial.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from is an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, even when made “in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion, which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” (Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc., 283 AD2d 537 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Tolbert, J.), dated March 14, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude him from introducing testimony of a certain nonparty witness at trial.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from is an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, even when made “in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion, which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” (Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc., 283 AD2d 537 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 768, 769 N.Y.S.2d 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-fishkill-allsport-fitness-racquetball-club-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack