Summary
requesting party only entitled to substance of facts and opinions
Summary of this case from Einheber v. BodenheimerOpinion
October 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.H.O., G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 3, 1990, is dismissed (see, CPLR 3104 [d]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 9, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-respondent are awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the position of Union Carbide Corporation, there is no requirement to provide the fundamental factual information upon which an expert's opinions were made. Indeed, a party's request for the facts and opinions upon which another party's expert is expected to testify is improper. The requesting party is entitled only to the substance of those facts and opinions (see, Renucci v. Mercy Hosp., 124 A.D.2d 796, 797; CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]). The appellant further failed to show any special circumstances supporting its request for additional disclosure (see, Dioguardi v. St. John's Riverside Hosp., 144 A.D.2d 333).
We have reviewed the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.