Heusinger v. Russo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heusinger v. Russo

90 A.D.2d 841, 457 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19101

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 841 (Heusinger v. Russo) 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

Heusinger v. Russo, 90 A.D.2d 841, 457 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered April 22, 1982, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order vacating plaintiff's cross notice to take the oral deposition of defendant Russo. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to a motion by plaintiff for leave to take the oral deposition of defendant Russo, upon demonstrating the necessity of such oral deposition after completion of the oral deposition of defendant Ferrando, the former partner of defendant Russo, and after receipt of answers to interrogatories pursuant to CPLR 3130 et seq. No opinion. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered April 22, 1982, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order vacating plaintiff's cross notice to take the oral deposition of defendant Russo. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to a motion by plaintiff for leave to take the oral deposition of defendant Russo, upon demonstrating the necessity of such oral deposition after completion of the oral deposition of defendant Ferrando, the former partner of defendant Russo, and after receipt of answers to interrogatories pursuant to CPLR 3130 et seq. No opinion. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 841, 457 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heusinger-v-russo-nyappdiv-1982.