Hegler v. Loews Roosevelt Field Cinemas, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hegler v. Loews Roosevelt Field Cinemas, Inc.

280 A.D.2d 645, 720 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1787

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 645 (Hegler v. Loews Roosevelt Field Cinemas, Inc.) 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

Hegler v. Loews Roosevelt Field Cinemas, Inc., 280 A.D.2d 645, 720 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied their mo[646]*646tion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) to preclude the defendant’s expert from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, on both procedural and substantive grounds, the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) to preclude the defendant’s expert from testifying at trial. The plaintiffs’ attorney failed to provide the required affirmation of a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion (see, 22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; Barnes v NYNEX, Inc., 274 AD2d 368; Romero v Korn, 236 AD2d 598; Gonzalez v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 236 AD2d 363). Moreover, the expert disclosure provided by the defendant pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) was adequate (see, Marshall v 130 N. Bedford Rd. Mount Kisco Corp., 277 AD2d 432; McGlauflin v Wadhwa, 265 AD2d 534). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied their mo[646]*646tion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) to preclude the defendant’s expert from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, on both procedural and substantive grounds, the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) to preclude the defendant’s expert from testifying at trial. The plaintiffs’ attorney failed to provide the required affirmation of a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion (see, 22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; Barnes v NYNEX, Inc., 274 AD2d 368; Romero v Korn, 236 AD2d 598; Gonzalez v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 236 AD2d 363). Moreover, the expert disclosure provided by the defendant pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) was adequate (see, Marshall v 130 N. Bedford Rd. Mount Kisco Corp., 277 AD2d 432; McGlauflin v Wadhwa, 265 AD2d 534). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 645, 720 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hegler-v-loews-roosevelt-field-cinemas-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack