Opinion
January 21, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.).
Appeal by defendant Wiersma dismissed. Defendant Wiersma was not aggrieved by the order appealed from since it did not apply to him (CPLR 5511; see, Kipbea Baking Co. v Strauss, 10 A.D.2d 987).
On the appeal by the remaining defendants, order affirmed.
Respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
Appellants have failed to sustain their burden of showing that they are immune from disclosure (see, Koump v Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287). The mere fact that they are members of a legislative body does not exempt them from a requirement to appear at an examination before trial (cf. Supan v Michelfeld, 97 A.D.2d 755; Consolidated Petroleum Term. v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 75 A.D.2d 611).
The issues raised by appellants concerning their entitlement to dismissal of the complaint were not presented to Special Term in a manner sufficient to obtain a ruling thereon and therefore will not be considered by this court on appeal (see, Randall-Smith, Inc. v 43rd St. Estates Corp., 23 A.D.2d 835, revd on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 99). Our decision is without prejudice to their right to assert these contentions before Special Term in an appropriate motion. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.