Rosenwald v. Rego Crescent Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenwald v. Rego Crescent Corp.

68 A.D.2d 925, 414 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11177

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.2d 925 (Rosenwald v. Rego Crescent Corp.) 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

Rosenwald v. Rego Crescent Corp., 68 A.D.2d 925, 414 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant the Brooklyn Union Gas Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 23, 1978, as granted that branch of the motion of Rego Crescent Corp. to require it to produce for discovery, inspection and copying certain reports, records and photographs. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Hyman at Special Term. We add that since the issue of redaction of the experts’ reports (so as to eliminate such portions thereof as may constitute opinions) was not raised by appellant at Special Term, it may not raise such issue before this court (see American Ind. Contr. Co. v Travelers Ind. Co., 54 AD2d 679). Titone, J. P., Shapiro, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant the Brooklyn Union Gas Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 23, 1978, as granted that branch of the motion of Rego Crescent Corp. to require it to produce for discovery, inspection and copying certain reports, records and photographs. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Hyman at Special Term. We add that since the issue of redaction of the experts’ reports (so as to eliminate such portions thereof as may constitute opinions) was not raised by appellant at Special Term, it may not raise such issue before this court (see American Ind. Contr. Co. v Travelers Ind. Co., 54 AD2d 679). Titone, J. P., Shapiro, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.2d 925, 414 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenwald-v-rego-crescent-corp-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack