DeSilva v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeSilva v. Rosenberg

261 A.D.2d 503, 690 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 503 (DeSilva v. Rosenberg) 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

DeSilva v. Rosenberg, 261 A.D.2d 503, 690 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 1, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate a certification order dated January 21, 1998, or in the alternative, to extend his time to place the matter on the trial calendar and to direct the defendants Stuart T. Rosenberg and Karl M. Neimand to provide additional handwriting exemplars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Recently, this Court noted that “[t]he supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court * * * and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” (Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to compel the defendants Stuart T. Rosenberg and Karl M. Neimand to provide farther discovery in the form of additional handwriting exemplars (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Scocozza v Tolia, 254 AD2d 475; Dittert v Oak Tree Farm Dairy, 249 AD2d 356). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 1, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate a certification order dated January 21, 1998, or in the alternative, to extend his time to place the matter on the trial calendar and to direct the defendants Stuart T. Rosenberg and Karl M. Neimand to provide additional handwriting exemplars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Recently, this Court noted that “[t]he supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court * * * and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” (Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to compel the defendants Stuart T. Rosenberg and Karl M. Neimand to provide farther discovery in the form of additional handwriting exemplars (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Scocozza v Tolia, 254 AD2d 475; Dittert v Oak Tree Farm Dairy, 249 AD2d 356). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 503, 690 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desilva-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack