Opinion
December 17, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
Plaintiff's request for a further examination before trial in effect was an application "`seeking rulings on an examination before trial'" ( Siegal v. Arnao, 61 A.D.2d 812, quoting from Klein v. Schneiderman, 58 A.D.2d 763). This court has repeatedly held that an order on an application to review objections raised at an examination before trial is not appealable as of right (see, e.g., Roberts v. Modica, 102 A.D.2d 886; Aronofsky v. Marine Park Chiropractic Center, 81 A.D.2d 570; Hartsdale Agency v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 69 A.D.2d 832; Siegal v. Arnao, supra). In addition to the fact that "we are disinclined to grant leave to parties who have taken it upon themselves to perfect an appeal without leave to appeal" ( Roberts v. Modica, supra), had an application been made, we would not have granted leave to appeal under the circumstances herein (see Hartsdale Agency v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., supra; Siegal v. Arnao, supra). Thompson, J.P., O'Connor, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.