Winograd v. Price

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winograd v. Price

21 A.D.3d 956, 800 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 956 (Winograd v. Price) 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

Winograd v. Price, 21 A.D.3d 956, 800 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J), dated September 19, 2003, as denied their motion to introduce evidence of lost income at the trial on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from is an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, even when made “in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” (Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc., 283 AD2d 537 [2001], quoting Cotgreave v Public Adm’r of Imperial County, 91 AD2d 600, 601 [1982]; see Curtis v Fishkill Allsport Fitness & Racquetball Club, 2 AD3d 768 [2003]; Farmer v Nostrand Ave. Meat & Poultry, 289 AD2d 439 [2001]). S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, 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, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J), dated September 19, 2003, as denied their motion to introduce evidence of lost income at the trial on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from is an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, even when made “in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” (Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc., 283 AD2d 537 [2001], quoting Cotgreave v Public Adm’r of Imperial County, 91 AD2d 600, 601 [1982]; see Curtis v Fishkill Allsport Fitness & Racquetball Club, 2 AD3d 768 [2003]; Farmer v Nostrand Ave. Meat & Poultry, 289 AD2d 439 [2001]). S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 956, 800 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winograd-v-price-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack