From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Sheehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

In Hill v. Sheehan, 20 N.Y.S. 529, decided in 1892, the principle announced in Althorf v. Wolfe, supra, was applied to a case where the defendant, a livery and boarding stable keeper, entrusted a horse belonging to a patron to his servant to be delivered to his patron with positive instructions not to permit anyone else to drive the horse.

Summary of this case from Medeiros v. Hon. Motor Coach

Opinion

October 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and plaintiffs' motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term abused its discretion in precluding plaintiff from deposing her physician, who had moved to California and was not available to testify at trial. The record establishes that plaintiff was not aware that her doctor had relocated his office until her attorney was preparing the case for trial. CPLR 3117 (a) (4) authorizes any party to use the deposition of a medical doctor without the necessity of showing special circumstances. Plaintiff's application to depose her own treating physician is not in the nature of discovery, which would require plaintiff to spell out in factual detail special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances to justify departure from the general rule foreclosing discovery after a statement of readiness has been filed.


Summaries of

Hill v. Sheehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

In Hill v. Sheehan, 20 N.Y.S. 529, decided in 1892, the principle announced in Althorf v. Wolfe, supra, was applied to a case where the defendant, a livery and boarding stable keeper, entrusted a horse belonging to a patron to his servant to be delivered to his patron with positive instructions not to permit anyone else to drive the horse.

Summary of this case from Medeiros v. Hon. Motor Coach
Case details for

Hill v. Sheehan

Case Details

Full title:GAY E. HILL et al., Appellants, v. DANIEL L. SHEEHAN et al., Doing…

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
545 N.Y.S.2d 868

Citing Cases

Wellman v. Miner

The present case is not well distinguished from that cited and, by the reasoning there employed, Brown is to…

Thomas v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc.

. (Goldblatt v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 223 A.D.2d 670, 637 N.Y.S.2d 188 [1996]; Beliavskaia v Perkin, 227…