From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 27, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.)


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) requires a party to disclose, among other information, "the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify". The conclusory statement in the plaintiffs' supplemental response to Item 3 of the defendants' demand for expert information failed to satisfy the statutory requirement ( see, Chapman v. State of New York, 189 A.D.2d 1075; Brossoit v. O'Brien, 169 A.D.2d 1019). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiffs to provide a further response.

Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group

Case Details

Full title:LOUISE CURATOLA, as Administratrix of the Estate of JOHN CURATOLA…

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

Date published: Oct 27, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 570