Dental Leasing Corp. v. Antonoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dental Leasing Corp. v. Antonoff

63 A.D.2d 618, 405 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11466

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

DecidedMay 18, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 618 (Dental Leasing Corp. v. Antonoff) 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

Dental Leasing Corp. v. Antonoff, 63 A.D.2d 618, 405 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 30, 1977, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to an application by defendant-appellant to reopen plaintiff-respondent’s examination before trial in order to pursue before Special Term, Part II, rulings on objections previously interposed on plaintiff’s examination. Appellant has failed to follow the procedure set forth in Tri-State Pipe Lines Corp. v Sinclair ReBning Co. (26 AD2d 285, app dsmd 26 AD2d 544). The attempt to circumvent that procedure by appellant’s application for penalties under CPLR 3124 does not make the order thereon appealable. (Klein v Schneiderman, 58 AD2d 763.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 30, 1977, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to an application by defendant-appellant to reopen plaintiff-respondent’s examination before trial in order to pursue before Special Term, Part II, rulings on objections previously interposed on plaintiff’s examination. Appellant has failed to follow the procedure set forth in Tri-State Pipe Lines Corp. v Sinclair ReBning Co. (26 AD2d 285, app dsmd 26 AD2d 544). The attempt to circumvent that procedure by appellant’s application for penalties under CPLR 3124 does not make the order thereon appealable. (Klein v Schneiderman, 58 AD2d 763.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 618, 405 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dental-leasing-corp-v-antonoff-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack