Sepulveda v. Good Samaritan Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sepulveda v. Good Samaritan Hospital

298 A.D.2d 381, 751 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9383

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 381 (Sepulveda v. Good Samaritan Hospital) 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

Sepulveda v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 298 A.D.2d 381, 751 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants Good Samaritan Hospital, Paul H. Broom-field, and John Mclvor appeal, and the defendants Jason L. Schneider and Terry Palatt separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated February 21, 2002, as denied those branches of their respective cross motions which were to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing certain evidence at trial.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

No appeal lies, either as of right or by permission, from an order adjudicating in advance of trial the admissibility of evidence (see CPLR 5701; Lewin v County of Suffolk, 293 AD2d 453; Farmer v Nostrand Ave. Meat & Poultry, 289 AD2d 439; Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., 141 AD2d 709). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, 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, etc., the defendants Good Samaritan Hospital, Paul H. Broom-field, and John Mclvor appeal, and the defendants Jason L. Schneider and Terry Palatt separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated February 21, 2002, as denied those branches of their respective cross motions which were to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing certain evidence at trial.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

No appeal lies, either as of right or by permission, from an order adjudicating in advance of trial the admissibility of evidence (see CPLR 5701; Lewin v County of Suffolk, 293 AD2d 453; Farmer v Nostrand Ave. Meat & Poultry, 289 AD2d 439; Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., 141 AD2d 709). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 381, 751 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sepulveda-v-good-samaritan-hospital-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack