SHAHRAM v. ST ELIZABETH SCHOOL (2005)

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

Zahra SHAHRAM, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. ST. ELIZABETH SCHOOL and Roman Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.

Decided: September 30, 2005

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SCUDDER, SMITH, PINE, AND HAYES, JJ.

Chelus, Herdzik, Speyer, Monte & Pajak, P.C., Buffalo (Stephanie G. Elliott of Counsel), for Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. Campbell & Shelton LLP, Eden (R. Colin Campbell of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant.

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Zahra Shahram (plaintiff) in a motor vehicle accident in 1998. Plaintiff thereafter made a motion in limine seeking to preclude defendants from “utilizing [certain] information at trial,” including her bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars from prior litigation wherein she sought damages for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident in 1990. According to plaintiff, her former attorney sent her only the verification pages for the respective bills of particulars and directed her to sign those pages in the presence of a notary public and return them to him. Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that part of the motion “conditionally,” i.e., on the condition that plaintiff testify at trial that she had not read the bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars. Inasmuch as the order herein “merely adjudicates the admissibility of evidence” and does not affect a substantial right, no appeal lies as of right from the order (Scalp & Blade v. Advest, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 219, 224, 765 N.Y.S.2d 92; see CPLR 5701[a][2] [v] ). Thus, the appeal and cross appeal must be dismissed (see Vesperman v. Wormser, 283 A.D.2d 637, 638, 725 N.Y.S.2d 361; Chateau Rive Corp. v. Enclave Dev. Assoc., 283 A.D.2d 537, 725 N.Y.S.2d 215).

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal and cross appeal be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

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Out of date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