Marable v. Hughes

38 A.D.3d 1344, 830 N.Y.S.2d 686
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 16, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 1344 (Marable v. Hughes) 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
Marable v. Hughes, 38 A.D.3d 1344, 830 N.Y.S.2d 686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered June 15, 2006. The order, among other things, granted the motion of defendants Daniel J. Hughes and Deborah L. Kachelmeyer, also known as Deborah L. Hughes, for a protective order and to compel plaintiff to provide certain records to them.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action, individually and on behalf of her daughter, seeking damages for injuries sustained by her daughter as a result of her exposure to lead paint. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Daniel J. [1345]*1345Hughes and Deborah L. Kachelmeyer, also known as Deborah L. Hughes (defendants), seeking, inter alia, to compel plaintiff to provide to defendants all “records and/or reports of neuropsychological or IQ testing” of her daughter prior to her daughter’s examination by defendants’ expert. “Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the court’s control of the discovery process” (MS Partnership v Wal-Mart Stores, 273 AD2d 858, 858 [2000]; see Andruszewski v Cantello, 247 AD2d 876 [1998]), and we perceive no abuse of discretion in this case (see generally 22 NYCRR 202.17 [b]). Defendants have conceded that they are not seeking reports that are generated by expert witnesses within the purview of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i), nor does the order on appeal encompass such reports. Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

Manner v. Yancey
218 A.D.3d 1196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
SMALLEY, DAVID v. HARLEY DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Smalley v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.
115 A.D.3d 1369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
MCCARTER, MICHAEL v. WOODS, WILLIAM
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
HAMILTON, CHRISTOPHER v. MILLER, JOHN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Hamilton v. Miller
106 A.D.3d 1476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
McCarter v. Woods
106 A.D.3d 1540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
GILES, SHAWN v. YI, A. GI
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Giles v. Gi Yi
105 A.D.3d 1313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Petrovets v. Thorpe
56 A.D.2d 1161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Jessica H. v. Spagnolo
41 A.D.3d 1261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 1344, 830 N.Y.S.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marable-v-hughes-nyappdiv-2007.