Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Laurie Braverman, et al., respondents, v. Bendiner & Schlesinger, Inc., appellant, et al., defendant.
Submitted—June 10, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a putative class action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Bendiner & Schlesinger, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh, J.), dated January 18, 2011, as denied its motion for a protective order preventing the further examination before trial of Dr. William Closson.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondents.
No appeal as of right lies from an order determining an application to review rulings made at an examination before trial (see Nappi v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 31 AD3d 509, 510–511; Scalone v. Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 A.D.2d 65, 69). Similarly, the denial of a protective order preventing the further examination of a witness is not appealable as of right, since that is in the nature of an order on application to review objections raised at an examination before trial (see Robinson v Pediatric Assoc. of Irwin Ave., 307 A.D.2d 1029, 1030; Efdey Elec. Contrs. v. Melita, 151 A.D.2d 640, 641; Miller v. United Parcel Serv., 143 A.D.2d 820, 821). The defendant Bendiner & Schlesinger, Inc., has not sought leave to appeal, and there is nothing in the record which would warrant granting leave to appeal on the Court's own motion (see Daniels v Fairfield Presidential Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d 386, 387; Nappi v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 31 AD3d at 511; cf. Scalone v. Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 A.D.2d at 69; Hughson v St. Francis Hosp. of Port Jervis, 93 A.D.2d 491, 495).
DILLON, J.P., COVELLO, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2011–01705 (Index No. 4056 /06)
Decided: June 28, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)