Reynolds v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reynolds v. Kelly

115 A.D.3d 1248, 982 N.Y.S.2d 428

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 1248 (Reynolds v. Kelly) 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

Reynolds v. Kelly, 115 A.D.3d 1248, 982 N.Y.S.2d 428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered November 29, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order disqualifying the designated defense examiner.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of her exposure to lead paint as a child while residing in an apartment owned by defendants. Plaintiff contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying her cross motion for a protective order seeking disqualification of the designated defense examiner, a neuropsychologist, or, in the alternative, directing that the examination be recorded. While this appeal was pending, the challenged examination was conducted and the examiner has since issued a report. We conclude that plaintiffs appeal is moot as a [1249]*1249result of those intervening circumstances, and this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see Cuevas v 1738 Assoc., L.L.C., 111 AD3d 416, 416 [2013]; see also Hughes v Farrey, 39 AD3d 431, 431 [2007]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). We therefore dismiss the appeal.

Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered November 29, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order disqualifying the designated defense examiner.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of her exposure to lead paint as a child while residing in an apartment owned by defendants. Plaintiff contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying her cross motion for a protective order seeking disqualification of the designated defense examiner, a neuropsychologist, or, in the alternative, directing that the examination be recorded. While this appeal was pending, the challenged examination was conducted and the examiner has since issued a report. We conclude that plaintiffs appeal is moot as a [1249]*1249result of those intervening circumstances, and this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see Cuevas v 1738 Assoc., L.L.C., 111 AD3d 416, 416 [2013]; see also Hughes v Farrey, 39 AD3d 431, 431 [2007]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). We therefore dismiss the appeal.

Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 1248, 982 N.Y.S.2d 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack