Czarnecki v. Welch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Czarnecki v. Welch

23 A.D.3d 914, 803 N.Y.S.2d 817

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 914 (Czarnecki v. Welch) 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

Czarnecki v. Welch, 23 A.D.3d 914, 803 N.Y.S.2d 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered February 17, 2005 in Saratoga County, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when he was bitten by defendants’ dog in [915]*915December 2001. Subsequently, plaintiff moved for an order directing defendants to comply with his discovery demand that the dog be videotaped during a re-creation of the events surrounding the biting incident for evaluation by an animal behavior expert. Supreme Court denied the motion, noting the passage of “some three years” since the incident as well as the lack of authority permitting such an experiment. Plaintiff appeals.

Supreme Court has broad discretion in managing disclosure, and absent an abuse of discretion or unreasonable interference with the disclosure of relevant and necessary material we will not disturb its determinations with regard thereto (see American Assn. of Bioanalysts v New York State Dept. of Health, 12 AD3d 868, 869 [2004]; McMahon v Aviette Agency, 301 AD2d 820, 821 [2003]; Jordan v Blue Circle Atl., 296 AD2d 752, 752-753 [2002]). Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion (see Austin v Bascaran, 185 AD2d 474, 475 [1992]; compare Hayden v Sieni, 196 AD2d 573, 574 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 835 [1993]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered February 17, 2005 in Saratoga County, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when he was bitten by defendants’ dog in [915]*915December 2001. Subsequently, plaintiff moved for an order directing defendants to comply with his discovery demand that the dog be videotaped during a re-creation of the events surrounding the biting incident for evaluation by an animal behavior expert. Supreme Court denied the motion, noting the passage of “some three years” since the incident as well as the lack of authority permitting such an experiment. Plaintiff appeals.

Supreme Court has broad discretion in managing disclosure, and absent an abuse of discretion or unreasonable interference with the disclosure of relevant and necessary material we will not disturb its determinations with regard thereto (see American Assn. of Bioanalysts v New York State Dept. of Health, 12 AD3d 868, 869 [2004]; McMahon v Aviette Agency, 301 AD2d 820, 821 [2003]; Jordan v Blue Circle Atl., 296 AD2d 752, 752-753 [2002]). Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion (see Austin v Bascaran, 185 AD2d 474, 475 [1992]; compare Hayden v Sieni, 196 AD2d 573, 574 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 835 [1993]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 914, 803 N.Y.S.2d 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czarnecki-v-welch-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack