From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pole v. Frame Chevrolet, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1989
147 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, by adding thereto a provision directing the plaintiff to produce so much of his expert's report as contains factual data relating to the subject vehicle; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's time to produce the expert's report is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The defendant third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant have demonstrated circumstances sufficient to warrant limited disclosure of the plaintiff's expert's report pursuant to the former provisions of CPLR 3101 (d), which govern this action (see, McKinstry v Werner Mach. Co., 133 A.D.2d 361; Stevens v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 117 A.D.2d 733; Anastasia v Barnes, 109 A.D.2d 769; Terwilliger v Leach Co., 88 A.D.2d 910; see also, Kellar v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 105 A.D.2d 691, 692; Morrison v Ellis, 91 A.D.2d 1172). However, we agree with the Supreme Court that, under the circumstances presented, a deposition of the plaintiff's expert is unwarranted (see, Calo v Ahearn, 135 A.D.2d 457, 458). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pole v. Frame Chevrolet, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1989
147 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Pole v. Frame Chevrolet, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN POLE, Respondent, v. FRAME CHEVROLET, INC., Defendant and Third-Party…

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)