Lacerenza v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lacerenza v. Rich

39 A.D.2d 716, 332 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4737

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

DecidedMay 1, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 716 (Lacerenza v. Rich) 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

Lacerenza v. Rich, 39 A.D.2d 716, 332 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 24, 1970, as directed plaintiff Salvatore Laeerenza to answer questions, upon certain subjects, at an examination before trial. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The order is not appealable (Matthews v. Sehusheim, 25 A D 2d 450; Brimberg v. Frielich, 10 A D 2d 850; Hall v. Wood, 5 A D 2d 998). We have, however, examined the merits and have concluded that we would affirm the order insofar as appealed from if the appeal were not being dismissed. The examination shall proceed at the place directed in the order under review at a time to be specified in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by defendant, or at such other time and place as may be agreed by the parties. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from, with the following memorandum: In my opinion the order affects a substantial right and therefore is appealable as of right (CPLR 5701, subd. [a], par. 2, cl. [v]). On the merits, I agree that the order was correct.

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

In a negligence action, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 24, 1970, as directed plaintiff Salvatore Laeerenza to answer questions, upon certain subjects, at an examination before trial. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The order is not appealable (Matthews v. Sehusheim, 25 A D 2d 450; Brimberg v. Frielich, 10 A D 2d 850; Hall v. Wood, 5 A D 2d 998). We have, however, examined the merits and have concluded that we would affirm the order insofar as appealed from if the appeal were not being dismissed. The examination shall proceed at the place directed in the order under review at a time to be specified in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by defendant, or at such other time and place as may be agreed by the parties. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from, with the following memorandum: In my opinion the order affects a substantial right and therefore is appealable as of right (CPLR 5701, subd. [a], par. 2, cl. [v]). On the merits, I agree that the order was correct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 716, 332 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacerenza-v-rich-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack