Karson v. Zelnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karson v. Zelnick

44 A.D.2d 852, 355 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913

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

DecidedMay 28, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 852 (Karson v. Zelnick) 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

Karson v. Zelnick, 44 A.D.2d 852, 355 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Nassau Car Company, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 12, 1973, which denied its motion to amend a ruling made by the Special Term, Part II, of said court on June 11, 1973 at the conclusion of the examination before trial of defendants, which ruling required appellant to append two papers to the transcript of its employee’s deposition. Order reversed, in the exercise of this court’s discretion, without costs, motion granted and appellant is relieved of the requirement to append said papers to its employee’s deposition (Cohen v. Heine & Co., 39 A D 2d 563). We note that although (1) rulings made in the course of an examination before trial are not appealable (Hall v. Wood, 5 A D 2d 998) and (2) attorneys may reserve the right to object at ithe trial to evidence adduced at an examination before trial, nevertheless, the order under review is appealable because its provisions indicated the possible entry of an order precluding a material witness’ testimony at the trial. The order is formally entered and affects a substantial right. It is appealable (CPLR 5701, subd. [a], par. 2, cl. [v]). Gulotta, P. J. Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Nassau Car Company, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 12, 1973, which denied its motion to amend a ruling made by the Special Term, Part II, of said court on June 11, 1973 at the conclusion of the examination before trial of defendants, which ruling required appellant to append two papers to the transcript of its employee’s deposition. Order reversed, in the exercise of this court’s discretion, without costs, motion granted and appellant is relieved of the requirement to append said papers to its employee’s deposition (Cohen v. Heine & Co., 39 A D 2d 563). We note that although (1) rulings made in the course of an examination before trial are not appealable (Hall v. Wood, 5 A D 2d 998) and (2) attorneys may reserve the right to object at ithe trial to evidence adduced at an examination before trial, nevertheless, the order under review is appealable because its provisions indicated the possible entry of an order precluding a material witness’ testimony at the trial. The order is formally entered and affects a substantial right. It is appealable (CPLR 5701, subd. [a], par. 2, cl. [v]). Gulotta, P. J. Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 852, 355 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karson-v-zelnick-nyappdiv-1974.