Summary
In Stoller (118 AD2d at 637), the Second Department cited Anker in determining that "Special Term correctly held that the appellants are not entitled to conduct an unauthorized (i.e., without the plaintiffs' consent) private interview with... a nonparty treating physician; they are limited to the discovery devices prescribed in CPLR article 31...."
Summary of this case from Kish v. GrahamOpinion
March 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.).
Appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was for a further examination before trial of nonparty witness Harvey Stoller dismissed. Insofar as it seeks review of that portion of the order, the appeal is in the nature of an appeal from an order on an application to review objections raised at an examination before trial, and such an order is not appealable as a matter of right (see, Sainz v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 106 A.D.2d 500).
Order affirmed insofar as it denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to interview Dr. Hugh Biller.
The plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
Special Term correctly held that the appellants are not entitled to conduct an unauthorized (i.e., without the plaintiffs' consent) private interview with Dr. Hugh Biller, a nonparty treating physician; they are limited to the discovery devices prescribed in CPLR article 31 (see, Anker v. Brodnitz, 98 Misc.2d 148, affd 73 A.D.2d 589 on opn of Justice Boyers at Special Term, appeal dismissed 51 N.Y.2d 743). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.