 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brandes v. North Shore University Hospital10/3/2005
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
HOWARD MILLER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM F. MASTRO and PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
(Index No. 5965/97)
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
In an unsigned transcript dated May 24, 2004, the Supreme Court purportedly sustained objections to certain deposition questions propounded by the plaintiff to nonparty Laura W. McIntosh. Contrary to the plaintiff's representation in her notice of appeal from an order dated June 23, 2004, the Supreme Court's rulings regarding McIntosh were never reduced to a written order. Nor were those rulings encompassed within the order dated June 23, 2004. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot now raise contentions regarding objections to McIntosh's testimony (see Ojeda v Metropolitan Playhouse, 120 AD2d 717; Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509).
With regard to the plaintiff's appeal from the order dated June 23, 2004, the Supreme Court properly sustained the objections at issue, which were made when the plaintiff's counsel sought expert opinions from nonparty Kimlyn C. Long (see Fristrom v Peekskill Community Hosp., 239 AD2d 315).
The plaintiff's contention that a special referee should be appointed to oversee future examinations before trial is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Storchevoy v Blinderman, 303 AD2d 672).
H. MILLER, J.P., SANTUCCI, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
|