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

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

DecidedJune 15, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1016 (Fontana v. LaRosa) 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

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

Pincite

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]*1017Ordered 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]*1017Ordered 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1016, 902 N.Y.S.2d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontana-v-larosa-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack