Neissel v. Iron Horse Cycle Accessories, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neissel v. Iron Horse Cycle Accessories, Ltd.

91 A.D.2d 977, 457 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16271

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.2d 977 (Neissel v. Iron Horse Cycle Accessories, Ltd.) 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

Neissel v. Iron Horse Cycle Accessories, Ltd., 91 A.D.2d 977, 457 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of defendant A.E.E. Choppers, Inc.’s allegedly negligent design and manufacture of a three-wheel bolt-on-kit, said defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 12, 1982, which conditionally granted plaintiff’s request for an order of preclusion of trial evidence unless an expert’s report was produced for discovery, and denied its cross motion for a protective order. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. In light of the conflicting allegations regarding the nature of the testing performed by plaintiff’s expert prior to the alleged alteration of the physical evidence, and whether the physical evidence was altered, it was error to resolve the conflict without conducting a hearing. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to Special Term so that a hearing can be conducted. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of defendant A.E.E. Choppers, Inc.’s allegedly negligent design and manufacture of a three-wheel bolt-on-kit, said defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 12, 1982, which conditionally granted plaintiff’s request for an order of preclusion of trial evidence unless an expert’s report was produced for discovery, and denied its cross motion for a protective order. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. In light of the conflicting allegations regarding the nature of the testing performed by plaintiff’s expert prior to the alleged alteration of the physical evidence, and whether the physical evidence was altered, it was error to resolve the conflict without conducting a hearing. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to Special Term so that a hearing can be conducted. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 977, 457 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neissel-v-iron-horse-cycle-accessories-ltd-nyappdiv-1983.