Scanga v. Family Practice Associates of Rockland, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scanga v. Family Practice Associates of Rockland, P.C.

41 A.D.3d 576, 836 N.Y.S.2d 432

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 576 (Scanga v. Family Practice Associates of Rockland, P.C.) 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

Scanga v. Family Practice Associates of Rockland, P.C., 41 A.D.3d 576, 836 N.Y.S.2d 432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated November 22, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel them to provide authorizations for original pathology slides.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in [577]*577determining that the defendants demonstrated unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting the limited discovery requested from the plaintiff (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793 [2006]; Davis v Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382, 385 [2004]), especially in light of the substantial prejudice to the defendants which would result without such discovery (see Arons v Jutkowitz, 37 AD3d 94, 100-101 [2006]). Crane, J.P., Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated November 22, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel them to provide authorizations for original pathology slides.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in [577]*577determining that the defendants demonstrated unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting the limited discovery requested from the plaintiff (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793 [2006]; Davis v Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382, 385 [2004]), especially in light of the substantial prejudice to the defendants which would result without such discovery (see Arons v Jutkowitz, 37 AD3d 94, 100-101 [2006]). Crane, J.P., Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 576, 836 N.Y.S.2d 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scanga-v-family-practice-associates-of-rockland-pc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack