Aronofsky v. Marine Park Chiropractic Center
| Decision Date | 06 April 1981 |
| Citation | 81 A.D.2d 570,437 N.Y.S.2d 422 |
| Parties | Murray ARONOFSKY, Respondent, v. MARINE PARK CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a partnership, etc. et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard S. Davis, New York City, (Harry Organek, Bayside, of counsel), for appellants.
O'Dwyer & Bernstien, New York City, (Leon Hershbaum, New York City, and James Gilroy, Bayside, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J. P., and GULOTTA, COHALAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a chiropractic malpractice action, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 14, 1980, as (1) denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with a prior order directing that plaintiff serve a further bill of particulars, and (2) directed the defendants to appear for further examination before trial and to answer all questions subject to certain qualifications.
Appeal from so much of the order as directed the defendants to appear for further examinations before trial dismissed. Order, insofar as it denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, affirmed. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements.
No appeal as of right lies from an order directing a party to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial (see Rockwood Nat. Corp. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 59 A.D.2d 573). Were we to treat defendants' brief as an application for leave to appeal pursuant to CPLR 5701 (subd. (c)) we would nonetheless deny the application as no important questions of privilege are involved.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughson v. St. Francis Hosp. of Port Jervis
...of right lies from an order on an application to review objections raised at an examination before trial (Aronofsky v. Marine Park Chiropractic Center, 81 A.D.2d 570, 437 N.Y.S.2d 422; Siegal v. Arnao, 61 A.D.2d 812, 402 N.Y.S.2d 44; Ithier v. Solomon, 59 A.D.2d 935, 399 N.Y.S.2d 450; Lacer......
-
Scott v. Vassar Bros. Hosp.
...& Hosps. Corp., 106 A.D.2d 500, 483 N.Y.S.2d 37; Roberts v. Modica, 102 A.D.2d 886, 477 N.Y.S.2d 59; Aronofsky v. Marine Park Chiropractic Center, 81 A.D.2d 570, 437 N.Y.S.2d 422; Hartsdale Agency v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 69 A.D.2d 832, 415 N.Y.S.2d 627; Siegal v. Arnao, supra; Ithier v. S......
-
Efdey Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Melita
...& Hosps. Corp., 106 A.D.2d 500, 483 N.Y.S.2d 37; Roberts v. Modica, 102 A.D.2d 886, 477 N.Y.S.2d 59; Aronofsky v. Marine Park Chiropractic Center, 81 A.D.2d 570, 437 N.Y.S.2d 422; Rockwood Natl. Corp. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 59 A.D.2d 573, 502 N.Y.S.2d 403). Had an application for......
-
Daly v. Genovese
...propounded at an examination before trial (see Matter of Gambardella, 81 A.D.2d 835, 438 N.Y.S.2d 836; Aronofsky v. Marine Park Chiropractic Center, 81 A.D.2d 570, 437 N.Y.S.2d 422; Rockwood Nat. Corp. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 59 A.D.2d 573). The same is true, a fortiori, when such......