Opinion
88 CA 18-01657
02-08-2019
JOSE M. BERMUDEZ, JR., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AARON J. PEUSER AND MARIE T. ENTWISTLE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN TROP, DEWITT (THERESA M. ZEHE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. LAW OFFICES OF MARC JONAS, UTICA (MARC JONAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT:
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN TROP, DEWITT (THERESA M. ZEHE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
LAW OFFICES OF MARC JONAS, UTICA (MARC JONAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered January 10, 2018. The order, inter alia, directed defendants to produce the written statement of a nonparty witness.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order that, in effect, directed disclosure of a nonparty's written statement. An appeal from a discovery order is rendered moot, however, when the disputed material is disclosed before the appeal is decided (see Vandashield Ltd v Isaacson, 146 AD3d 552, 555 [1st Dept 2017]; Khoury v Chouchani, 27 AD3d 1071, 1073 [4th Dept 2006]; Matter of Franklin [International Bus. Machs. Corp.], 215 AD2d 759, 759 [2d Dept 1995]; cf. Matter of Camara v Skanska, Inc., 150 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2017]; but see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 109 AD3d 7, 12 n 2 [1st Dept 2013], lv dismissed 22 NY3d 1016 [2013]). Here, defendants disclosed the disputed statement during the pendency of this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot (see Vandashield Ltd, 146 AD3d at 553; Khoury, 27 AD3d at 1072; Franklin, 215 AD2d at 759).
Entered: February 8, 2019
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court