Rivera v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp.

38 A.D.3d 476, 832 N.Y.S.2d 563

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 29, 2007·Published

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered May 31, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony consistent with the opinions set out in plaintiff’s pediatric neurology expert witness disclosure, or alternatively, for a pretrial hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

An evidentiary ruling made before trial is generally reviewable only in the context of an appeal from the judgment rendered after trial (see Weatherbee Constr. Corp. v Miele, 270 AD2d 182, 183 [2000]). Thus, no appeal lies from the order denying defendant’s motion to preclude the proposed expert testimony (see Rodriguez v Ford Motor Co., 17 AD3d 159, 160 [2005]). This is not a situation falling within the exception to the rule (see Matter of City of New York v Mobil Oil Corp., 12 AD3d 77 [2004]), because the order defendant seeks to challenge does not limit the legal theory of the liability case (see Rodriguez, 17 AD3d at 160). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered May 31, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony consistent with the opinions set out in plaintiff’s pediatric neurology expert witness disclosure, or alternatively, for a pretrial hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

An evidentiary ruling made before trial is generally reviewable only in the context of an appeal from the judgment rendered after trial (see Weatherbee Constr. Corp. v Miele, 270 AD2d 182, 183 [2000]). Thus, no appeal lies from the order denying defendant’s motion to preclude the proposed expert testimony (see Rodriguez v Ford Motor Co., 17 AD3d 159, 160 [2005]). This is not a situation falling within the exception to the rule (see Matter of City of New York v Mobil Oil Corp., 12 AD3d 77 [2004]), because the order defendant seeks to challenge does not limit the legal theory of the liability case (see Rodriguez, 17 AD3d at 160). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Rivera v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp., 38 A.D.3d 476, 832 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

38 A.D.3d 476 (Rivera v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related