Teig v. Nissequogue Golf Club, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teig v. Nissequogue Golf Club, Inc.

241 A.D.2d 448, 663 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7278

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 448 (Teig v. Nissequogue Golf Club, 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

Teig v. Nissequogue Golf Club, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 448, 663 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated June 11, 1996, as directed the defendant to “fully and completely” comply with a prior order directing discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The propriety of the disclosure device fashioned by the court is not properly before this Court, since use of that disclosure [449]*449device was directed in a prior order of the same court dated September 29, 1995, from which no appeal was taken (see, Damen v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 234 AD2d 255). In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated June 11, 1996, as directed the defendant to “fully and completely” comply with a prior order directing discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The propriety of the disclosure device fashioned by the court is not properly before this Court, since use of that disclosure [449]*449device was directed in a prior order of the same court dated September 29, 1995, from which no appeal was taken (see, Damen v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 234 AD2d 255). In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 448, 663 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teig-v-nissequogue-golf-club-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack