From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klein v. Schneiderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 7, 1977
58 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

July 7, 1977


Appeal from an order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 11, 1977, denying defendants' motion to compel a further deposition of plaintiff on the subject of whether or not she used certain drugs on and prior to the date of the accident or, in the alternative, dismissing her complaint, unanimously dismissed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In effect, the defendants' application is one seeking rulings upon an examination before trial. They have "short-circuited" the procedure outlined in Tri-State Pipe Lines Corp. v Sinclair Refining Co. ( 26 A.D.2d 285, app dsmd 26 A.D.2d 544). Rulings made upon objections on an examination before trial are not appealable (Lee v Chemway Corp., 20 A.D.2d 266; Empire Brushes v Gantz, 35 A.D.2d 736). Although we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed, we have considered the points raised by defendants-appellants and also conclude that Special Term's order constituted a proper exercise of its discretion.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Lupiano, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ.


Summaries of

Klein v. Schneiderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 7, 1977
58 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Klein v. Schneiderman

Case Details

Full title:MINDY KLEIN, Respondent, v. LEWIS SCHNEIDERMAN et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jul 7, 1977

Citations

58 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Waldman v. Sakow

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 9, 1978, unanimously dismissed, with $40…

Spatz v. Wide World Travel Service Inc.

Otherwise, the order in so far as it directed that examinations be held in New York City and denied the…