Fontana v. LaRosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fontana v. LaRosa

74 A.D.3d 1016, 902 N.Y.S.2d 401

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 2010·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Tameshwar Ammar appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated May 18, 2009, which denied his motion to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witness or to direct that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [1923]).

[1017] Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The order appealed from, which denied the appellant’s motion to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witness or to direct that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [1923]), was, in effect, an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, “even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” (Savarese v City of N.Y. Hous. Auth., 172 AD2d 506, 509 [1991]; see Hering v Lighthouse 2001, LLC, 21 AD3d 449, 451-452 [2005]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, 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, etc., the defendant Tameshwar Ammar appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated May 18, 2009, which denied his motion to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witness or to direct that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [1923]).

[1017] Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The order appealed from, which denied the appellant’s motion to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witness or to direct that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [1923]), was, in effect, an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, “even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” (Savarese v City of N.Y. Hous. Auth., 172 AD2d 506, 509 [1991]; see Hering v Lighthouse 2001, LLC, 21 AD3d 449, 451-452 [2005]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Fontana v. LaRosa, 74 A.D.3d 1016, 902 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

74 A.D.3d 1016 (Fontana v. LaRosa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related