Langley v. AIG Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langley v. AIG Realty Co.

251 A.D.2d 113, 672 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6666

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

DecidedJune 11, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 113 (Langley v. AIG Realty Co.) 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

Langley v. AIG Realty Co., 251 A.D.2d 113, 672 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about November 10, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s supplemental bill of particulars and to preclude plaintiff from introducing at trial evidence of certain injuries and the testimony of certain doctors, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, at this juncture, defendant’s motion to preclude where there was no showing that plaintiff failed to provide medical reports under her control or that plaintiff failed to provide authorizations for those notes and records not under her control. We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find they do not warrant a modification of the order. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about November 10, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s supplemental bill of particulars and to preclude plaintiff from introducing at trial evidence of certain injuries and the testimony of certain doctors, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, at this juncture, defendant’s motion to preclude where there was no showing that plaintiff failed to provide medical reports under her control or that plaintiff failed to provide authorizations for those notes and records not under her control. We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find they do not warrant a modification of the order. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 113, 672 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langley-v-aig-realty-co-nyappdiv-1998.