From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buhler v. Sheridan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 10, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oswego County, Donovan, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.


Appeal unanimously dismissed with costs. Memorandum: We hold that an order deferring determination of a motion to compel discovery until after an in camera inspection of certain materials by the court does not affect a substantial right (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; cf., Howell v. Independent Union, 112 A.D.2d 754; Bagdy v. Progresso Foods Corp., 86 A.D.2d 589). A party aggrieved by an order entered after the court's in camera inspection may take an appeal (see, Matter of Summers v. Faust, 110 A.D.2d 643).


Summaries of

Buhler v. Sheridan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Buhler v. Sheridan

Case Details

Full title:BARRY R. BUHLER, Respondent, v. SELMA J. SHERIDAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Washington Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Joel OO. (In re Joseph OO.)

Indeed, it is possible that the court's in camera review of the records would result in all of the records…

Statt v. Goldstein

Both appeals are premature. Neither motion has been decided and, therefore, no substantial right of either…