AMBROSIO v. 85 CRYSTAL

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 2006-06718.

Attorney(S)

Larkin, Axelrod, Ingrassia Tetenbaum, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (James Alexander Burke of counsel), for appellants. Barry McTiernan Moore, New York, N.Y. (Gary Rome, Anthony McNulty, and Friedman Gaythwaite Wolf Leavitt [Martha Gaythwaite] of counsel), for respondent Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Wolff Samson, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kenneth L. Laptook and Diana L. Buongiorno of counsel), for respondent PVI Industries, Inc., and Bleakley, Platt Schmidt, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Andrea J. Smith of counsel), for respondent Protemp Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. (one brief filed).

Judges

Edward D. Carni

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 2006-06718.

Attorney(S)

Larkin, Axelrod, Ingrassia Tetenbaum, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (James Alexander Burke of counsel), for appellants. Barry McTiernan Moore, New York, N.Y. (Gary Rome, Anthony McNulty, and Friedman Gaythwaite Wolf Leavitt [Martha Gaythwaite] of counsel), for respondent Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Wolff Samson, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kenneth L. Laptook and Diana L. Buongiorno of counsel), for respondent PVI Industries, Inc., and Bleakley, Platt Schmidt, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Andrea J. Smith of counsel), for respondent Protemp Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. (one brief filed).

Judges

Edward D. Carni

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

ALEX D'AMBROSIO et al., Appellants, v. 85 CRYSTAL RUN COMPANY et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) BETTY MARTIN et al., Appellants,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the oral ruling is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to vacate a ruling ( see Hegarty v Bailee, 18 AD3d 705, 706; see Danne v Otis El. Corp., 276 AD2d 581, 582; cf. CPLR 5701 [a] [3]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining the proper scope of discovery ( see Hallahan v Ashland Chem. Co., 237 AD2d 697, 698; Prasad v B.K. Chevrolet, 184 AD2d 626).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

ALEX D'AMBROSIO et al., Appellants, v. 85 CRYSTAL RUN COMPANY et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) BETTY MARTIN et al., Appellants,

Comments