From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 21, 2014
115 A.D.3d 1248 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-03-21

Sharelle REYNOLDS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Richard KELLY, Bette Kelly and Mark Kelly, Defendants–Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered November 29, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order disqualifying the designated defense examiner. Athari & Associates, LLC, Utica (Mo Athari of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C., Albany (Paul A. Hurley of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents.


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered November 29, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order disqualifying the designated defense examiner.
Athari & Associates, LLC, Utica (Mo Athari of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C., Albany (Paul A. Hurley of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents.
MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of her exposure to lead paint as a child while residing in an apartment owned by defendants. Plaintiff contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying her cross motion for a protective order seeking disqualification of the designated defense examiner, a neuropsychologist, or, in the alternative, directing that the examination be recorded. While this appeal was pending, the challenged examination was conducted and the examiner has since issued a report. We conclude that plaintiff's appeal is moot as a result of those intervening circumstances, and this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Cuevas v. 1738 Assoc., L.L.C., 111 A.D.3d 416, 416, 974 N.Y.S.2d 380;see also Hughes v. Farrey, 39 A.D.3d 431, 431, 832 N.Y.S.2d 806;see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876). We therefore dismiss the appeal.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, and SCONIERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 21, 2014
115 A.D.3d 1248 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Reynolds v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:Sharelle REYNOLDS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Richard KELLY, Bette Kelly and…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 21, 2014

Citations

115 A.D.3d 1248 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
115 A.D.3d 1248
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1931