Jones v. Putnam Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Putnam Hospital Center

133 A.D.2d 447, 519 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49919

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 447 (Jones v. Putnam Hospital Center) 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

Jones v. Putnam Hospital Center, 133 A.D.2d 447, 519 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), entered May 15, 1986, as denied their motion for modification of a prior order of the same court which had directed them to provide a further response to the demand of the defendant Bloom for information regarding their expert witness pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1).

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision which directed a further response as to the expert’s qualifications; as so modified the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree that the request for further information as to the expert’s qualifications was palpably improper since it would effectively lead to disclosure of the expert’s identity which is [448]*448not required in a medical malpractice action under the statute (CPLR 3101 [d] [1]; Renucci v Mercy Hosp., 124 AD2d 796). Otherwise, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s direction for a further response as to the substance of the facts and opinions and the basis for the expert’s opinions (CPLR 3101 [d] [1]). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), entered May 15, 1986, as denied their motion for modification of a prior order of the same court which had directed them to provide a further response to the demand of the defendant Bloom for information regarding their expert witness pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1).

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision which directed a further response as to the expert’s qualifications; as so modified the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree that the request for further information as to the expert’s qualifications was palpably improper since it would effectively lead to disclosure of the expert’s identity which is [448]*448not required in a medical malpractice action under the statute (CPLR 3101 [d] [1]; Renucci v Mercy Hosp., 124 AD2d 796). Otherwise, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s direction for a further response as to the substance of the facts and opinions and the basis for the expert’s opinions (CPLR 3101 [d] [1]). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 447, 519 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-putnam-hospital-center-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack