WARD v. Caroline Drewes–Pessel, M.D., et al., Defendants. (2024)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Jane WARD, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Caroline Drewes–Pessel, M.D., et al., Defendants.

2041, [M-608]

Decided: April 11, 2024

Gesmer, J.P., Shulman, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ.

G. Wesley Simpson PC, Brooklyn (G. Wesley Simpson of counsel), for appellant.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered March 23, 2021, which, in this action for medical malpractice, denied plaintiff's motion for a further deposition of defendants Ming Tsai, M.D. and Judith Bautista, M.D., unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Rulings directed to an examination before trial, whether made upon motion papers or not, are not appealable as of right (see Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 239 A.D.2d 255, 658 N.Y.S.2d 837 [1st Dept. 1997]). Furthermore, we decline to consider plaintiff's notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal (CPLR 5701[c]).

Motion to dismiss the appeal, granted.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network