Odulio v. Adler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Odulio v. Adler

167 A.D.2d 378, 562 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13634

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 378 (Odulio v. Adler) 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

Odulio v. Adler, 167 A.D.2d 378, 562 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a podiatric malpractice action, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered July 6, 1989, which (1) denied their motion to require the plaintiffs to serve authorizations for medical records, and (2) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion to require the defendants to serve a supplemental response to the plaintiffs’ combined demand, inter alia, for a bill of particulars and information pertaining to expert witnesses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Trial courts enjoy wide discretion in directing discovery and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, a decision with respect to discovery will not lightly be set aside. We find no such improvident exercise of discretion on this record. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a podiatric malpractice action, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered July 6, 1989, which (1) denied their motion to require the plaintiffs to serve authorizations for medical records, and (2) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion to require the defendants to serve a supplemental response to the plaintiffs’ combined demand, inter alia, for a bill of particulars and information pertaining to expert witnesses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Trial courts enjoy wide discretion in directing discovery and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, a decision with respect to discovery will not lightly be set aside. We find no such improvident exercise of discretion on this record. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 378, 562 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odulio-v-adler-nyappdiv-1990.