McGlauflin v. Wadhwa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGlauflin v. Wadhwa

265 A.D.2d 534, 696 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10829

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 534 (McGlauflin v. Wadhwa) 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

McGlauflin v. Wadhwa, 265 A.D.2d 534, 696 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated January 27, 1999, which denied their motion to preclude the plaintiff from introducing expert testimony at the time of the trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A determination regarding whether to preclude a party from introducing the testimony of an expert witness at trial based on the party’s failure to comply with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Hubbard v Platzer, 260 AD2d 605; Lyall v City of New York, 228 AD2d 566). Under the circumstances here, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion. S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated January 27, 1999, which denied their motion to preclude the plaintiff from introducing expert testimony at the time of the trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A determination regarding whether to preclude a party from introducing the testimony of an expert witness at trial based on the party’s failure to comply with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Hubbard v Platzer, 260 AD2d 605; Lyall v City of New York, 228 AD2d 566). Under the circumstances here, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion. S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 534, 696 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcglauflin-v-wadhwa-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack