Dorsa v. National Amusements

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dorsa v. National Amusements

6 A.D.3d 654, 775 N.Y.S.2d 556

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 654 (Dorsa v. National Amusements) 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

Dorsa v. National Amusements, 6 A.D.3d 654, 775 N.Y.S.2d 556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated December 20, 2002, as denied that branch of its motion which was for a protective order precluding the plaintiffs expert from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order dated December 20, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a protective order precluding the plaintiffs expert from testifying at trial. “[A] party is not required to serve an adverse party with notice to inspect real property that is open to the general public” (Melendez v Food Emporium, 243 AD2d 264, 264-265 [1997]; see CPLR 3120 [a] [1] [ii]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams 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 defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated December 20, 2002, as denied that branch of its motion which was for a protective order precluding the plaintiffs expert from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order dated December 20, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a protective order precluding the plaintiffs expert from testifying at trial. “[A] party is not required to serve an adverse party with notice to inspect real property that is open to the general public” (Melendez v Food Emporium, 243 AD2d 264, 264-265 [1997]; see CPLR 3120 [a] [1] [ii]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 654, 775 N.Y.S.2d 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorsa-v-national-amusements-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack