Tash v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tash v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

22 A.D.3d 386, 801 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 386 (Tash v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.) 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

Tash v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 22 A.D.3d 386, 801 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 17, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to preclude evidence or compel disclosure to the extent of directing plaintiff to appear for examinations by a vocational rehabilitation expert and psychologist designated by defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[387]*387Post-note of issue disclosure was properly directed in order to avoid the prejudice engendered by plaintiff’s claims for psychological injuries and economic loss first alleged after the note of issue was filed (see Brown v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 256 AD2d 17 [1998]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 17, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to preclude evidence or compel disclosure to the extent of directing plaintiff to appear for examinations by a vocational rehabilitation expert and psychologist designated by defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[387]*387Post-note of issue disclosure was properly directed in order to avoid the prejudice engendered by plaintiff’s claims for psychological injuries and economic loss first alleged after the note of issue was filed (see Brown v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 256 AD2d 17 [1998]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 386, 801 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tash-v-federated-department-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack