Koczen v. VMR Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koczen v. VMR Corp.

300 A.D.2d 285, 750 N.Y.S.2d 877

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 285 (Koczen v. VMR 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

Koczen v. VMR Corp., 300 A.D.2d 285, 750 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant VMR Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a compliance conference order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R.E. Rivera, J.), dated February 28, 2002, as permitted discovery to continue after the filing date of the note of issue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The compliance conference order at issue is not appealable as of right because it does not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Cohalan v Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp., 105 AD2d 770; see also Yetman v St. Charles Hosp., 112 AD2d 297). A party seeking appellate review of such an order must move to vacate or modify it, and appeal, if necessary, from the resulting order (see Cohalan v Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp., supra; Everitt v Health Maintenance Ctr., 86 AD2d 224, 227). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, 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 defendant VMR Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a compliance conference order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R.E. Rivera, J.), dated February 28, 2002, as permitted discovery to continue after the filing date of the note of issue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The compliance conference order at issue is not appealable as of right because it does not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Cohalan v Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp., 105 AD2d 770; see also Yetman v St. Charles Hosp., 112 AD2d 297). A party seeking appellate review of such an order must move to vacate or modify it, and appeal, if necessary, from the resulting order (see Cohalan v Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp., supra; Everitt v Health Maintenance Ctr., 86 AD2d 224, 227). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 285, 750 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koczen-v-vmr-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack