Damour v. Montefiore Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Damour v. Montefiore Medical Center

32 A.D.3d 772, 820 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 772 (Damour v. Montefiore Medical Center) 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

Damour v. Montefiore Medical Center, 32 A.D.3d 772, 820 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which, upon defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs failure to provide discovery, directed plaintiff to provide certain purportedly privileged medical records for the court’s in camera review, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

There is no appeal of right from an order deferring a determination on a motion to compel discovery until after the motion court conducts an in camera review of the materials claimed to be privileged, because such an order does not affect a substantial right of the parties (Marriott Intl. v Lonny’s Hacking Corp., 262 AD2d 10 [1999]). We decline to grant leave to appeal. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which, upon defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs failure to provide discovery, directed plaintiff to provide certain purportedly privileged medical records for the court’s in camera review, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

There is no appeal of right from an order deferring a determination on a motion to compel discovery until after the motion court conducts an in camera review of the materials claimed to be privileged, because such an order does not affect a substantial right of the parties (Marriott Intl. v Lonny’s Hacking Corp., 262 AD2d 10 [1999]). We decline to grant leave to appeal. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 772, 820 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damour-v-montefiore-medical-center-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack