Kazyaka v. Laidlaw Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kazyaka v. Laidlaw Transit Corp.

205 A.D.2d 736, 614 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6619

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

DecidedJune 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 736 (Kazyaka v. Laidlaw Transit Corp.) 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

Kazyaka v. Laidlaw Transit Corp., 205 A.D.2d 736, 614 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated January 26, 1993, which denied their motion [737]*737to preclude the plaintiff from calling a physician to testify upon the trial of damages, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw her note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances presented here, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw her note of issue to allow her to comply with the defendants’ demand to exchange medical reports (see, Shawe v Addo-Yobo, 161 AD2d 363). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated January 26, 1993, which denied their motion [737]*737to preclude the plaintiff from calling a physician to testify upon the trial of damages, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw her note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances presented here, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw her note of issue to allow her to comply with the defendants’ demand to exchange medical reports (see, Shawe v Addo-Yobo, 161 AD2d 363). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 736, 614 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kazyaka-v-laidlaw-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack