From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Pontillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 27, 2000.

December 19, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered February 18, 2000, as denied their motion for a protective order and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to compel them to disclose an expert medical report and provide authorizations to copy records referred to therein and to be offered at trial, and (2) an order of the same court, entered May 15, 2000, as granted the defendant's cross motion to impose a sanction against their attorney.

Goldblatt Associates, New York, N.Y. (Kenneth B. Goldblatt and Michael Bogyn of counsel), for appellants.

Boeggeman, George, Hodges Corde, P.C., White Plains, N Y (Cynthia Dolan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered May 15, 2000, is dismissed, as the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see, CPLR 5511; Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle, 92 N.Y.2d 944); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered February 18, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the injured plaintiff was required to disclose the report of his expert who also examined him. Further, in anticipation of a medical examination by a defense expert, the injured plaintiff was required to provide authorizations to copy records and reports which are referred to in the medical report of his expert and will be offered at trial (see, CPLR 3121[b]; 22 NYCRR 202.17[b][2]; Frangella v. Sussman, 254 A.D.2d 391; Wagner v. Kingston Hosp., 182 A.D.2d 16; Pierson v. Yourish, 122 A.D.2d 202; cf., Santariga v. McCann, 161 A.D.2d 320).


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Pontillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Pontillo

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. DANIEL PONTILLO, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 641

Citing Cases

Maulella v. Maulella

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as imposed a sanction upon the plaintiff's attorney is…

Kelly v. Sobel

This deficiency is not cured by the moving papers. For the first time in his reply papers, defendant submits…