Lucious v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lucious v. New York City Transit Authority

300 A.D.2d 635, 751 N.Y.S.2d 792

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 635 (Lucious v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Lucious v. New York City Transit Authority, 300 A.D.2d 635, 751 N.Y.S.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an ac[636]*636tion to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 13, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the further examination before trial of the defendant Motorman Waterman and granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for a protective order preventing that examination.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an ac[636]*636tion to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 13, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the further examination before trial of the defendant Motorman Waterman and granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for a protective order preventing that examination.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 635, 751 N.Y.S.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucious-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2002.