Weatherbee Construction Corp. v. Miele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weatherbee Construction Corp. v. Miele

270 A.D.2d 182, 705 N.Y.S.2d 222, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3326

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 182 (Weatherbee Construction Corp. v. Miele) 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

Weatherbee Construction Corp. v. Miele, 270 A.D.2d 182, 705 N.Y.S.2d 222, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered March 12, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondents’ motion to preclude appellant from offering evidence at trial as to (1) its efforts to protect the subject premises during the pendency of the underlying action, (2) the propriety of the City’s decision to demolish the premises and (3) any and all actions undertaken by the City to demolish or shore up the building, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from an evidentiary ruling made before trial; such a ruling is reviewable only in connection with the appeal from the judgment rendered after trial (see, Matter of Grusetz, 248 AD2d 618; Roman v City of New York, 187 AD2d 390). In any event, were we to consider the determination of the IAS Court on the merits, we would find that it was well within the court’s discretion to preclude introduction of the subject evidence, which was not relevant to any of the issues involved in the pending trial. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered March 12, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondents’ motion to preclude appellant from offering evidence at trial as to (1) its efforts to protect the subject premises during the pendency of the underlying action, (2) the propriety of the City’s decision to demolish the premises and (3) any and all actions undertaken by the City to demolish or shore up the building, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from an evidentiary ruling made before trial; such a ruling is reviewable only in connection with the appeal from the judgment rendered after trial (see, Matter of Grusetz, 248 AD2d 618; Roman v City of New York, 187 AD2d 390). In any event, were we to consider the determination of the IAS Court on the merits, we would find that it was well within the court’s discretion to preclude introduction of the subject evidence, which was not relevant to any of the issues involved in the pending trial. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 182, 705 N.Y.S.2d 222, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weatherbee-construction-corp-v-miele-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack