From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amherst Magnetic Igng. Assoc. v. Com. Blue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1999
262 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 18, 1999

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J. — Discovery.

PRESENT: LAWTON, J. P., HAYES, WISNER, HURLBUTT AND SCUDDER, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In the absence of special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Supreme Court lacked discretion to order defendants to comply with plaintiff's demand for expert disclosure, served after the note of issue was filed (see, Melanson v. Caggiano, 251 A.D.2d 1059; Gould v. Marone, 197 A.D.2d 862). The fact that other discovery had been conducted by agreement of counsel does not constitute a special, unusual or extraordinary circumstance (see, Armatys v. Edwards, 229 A.D.2d 906, 907).


Summaries of

Amherst Magnetic Igng. Assoc. v. Com. Blue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1999
262 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Amherst Magnetic Igng. Assoc. v. Com. Blue

Case Details

Full title:AMHERST MAGNETIC IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P.C., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v…

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

Date published: Jun 18, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 627