Opinion
6640N Index 800030/11
05-22-2018
Kathleen HUTTON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. AESTHETIC SURGERY, P.C., et al., Defendants, Alex M. Greenberg, D.D.S., P.C., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Lutfy & Santora, Staten Island (James L. Lutfy of counsel), for appellant. Rawle & Henderson, LLP, New York (Sylvia E. Lee of counsel), for respondents.
Lutfy & Santora, Staten Island (James L. Lutfy of counsel), for appellant.
Rawle & Henderson, LLP, New York (Sylvia E. Lee of counsel), for respondents.
Sweeny, J.P., Webber, Gesmer, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, entered September 16, 2017, which, in this action for dental and plastic surgical malpractice, granted the motion of defendants Alex M. Greenberg, D.D.S., P.C. and Alex M. Greenberg, D.D.S. (Dr. Greenberg) for a protective order to the extent of placing certain limits on Dr. Greenberg's deposition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting further deposition of Dr. Greenberg to one day, which was in addition to the two previous days he had been deposed, and in limiting the scope of inquiry as concerned a surgical procedure performed by codefendant Elliot Rose. The procedure performed by Rose was one that Dr. Greenberg was not trained in and did not perform in his practice, and did he not assist on the date in question (see e.g. McKay v. Khabele, 46 A.D.3d 258, 846 N.Y.S.2d 187 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Plaintiff failed to show that the limitations deprived them of "deposition testimony relevant and necessary for preparation for trial" ( Smukler v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 178 A.D.2d 125, 126, 576 N.Y.S.2d 862 [1st Dept. 1991].
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.