From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gary Fontana v. Charles Larosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 2010
74 A.D.3d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-06694.

June 15, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Tameshwar Ammar appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated May 18, 2009, which denied his motion to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness or to direct that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States ( 293 F 1013).

Rogak Gibbons, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Joyce Lipton Rogak of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Joseph M. Lichtenstein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Gregory Green of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, JJ.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The order appealed from, which denied the appellant's motion to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness or to direct that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States ( 293 F 1013), was, in effect, 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" ( Savarese v City of N.Y. Hous. Auth., 172 AD2d 506, 509.]; see Hering v Lighthouse 2001, LLC, 21 AD3d 449, 451-452).


Summaries of

Gary Fontana v. Charles Larosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 2010
74 A.D.3d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Gary Fontana v. Charles Larosa

Case Details

Full title:GARY FONTANA et al., Respondents, v. CHARLES LAROSA et al., Defendants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 15, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5357
902 N.Y.S.2d 401

Citing Cases

Peykarian v. Chien

e Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated June 27, 2011, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR…

Hurtado v. Williams

led that “an order which merely determines the admissibility of evidence, even when made in advance of trial…