From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sukhova v. Ilyas

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 7, 2015
132 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

10-07-2015

Mila SUKHOVA, respondent, v. Chaudary M. ILYAS, et al., appellants.

Nancy L. Isserlis (Saretsky Katz Dranoff & Glass, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Gary J. Levy ], of counsel), for appellants. Daniel E. Rausher, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.


Nancy L. Isserlis (Saretsky Katz Dranoff & Glass, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Gary J. Levy ], of counsel), for appellants.

Daniel E. Rausher, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated July 10, 2014, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file her note of issue and denied their cross motion, inter alia, to compel a further deposition and additional medical examinations of the plaintiff.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court is vested with discretion over the supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor. Absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed (see Rinaldi v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 62 A.D.3d 856, 881 N.Y.S.2d 104 ). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of their cross motion which were to compel the plaintiff to submit to a further deposition (see Friel v. Papa, 87 A.D.3d 1108, 1110, 930 N.Y.S.2d 39 ; Palermo Mason Constr. v. Aark Holding Corp., 300 A.D.2d 460, 461, 751 N.Y.S.2d 599 ) and to appear for further psychiatric and orthopedic examinations (see Giordano v. Wei Xian Zhen, 103 A.D.3d 774, 775, 959 N.Y.S.2d 545 ; Rinaldi v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 62 A.D.3d at 856, 881 N.Y.S.2d 104 ).

Moreover, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a note of issue (see Pickens v. St. John's Hosp., 248 A.D.2d 693, 670 N.Y.S.2d 333 ). To the extent that the defendants' contentions are raised for the first time on appeal or rely on matter that is dehors the record, we have not considered them (see Moezinia v. Baroukhian, 247 A.D.2d 452, 668 N.Y.S.2d 688 ).

BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sukhova v. Ilyas

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 7, 2015
132 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Sukhova v. Ilyas

Case Details

Full title:Mila SUKHOVA, respondent, v. Chaudary M. ILYAS, et al., appellants.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 7, 2015

Citations

132 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
17 N.Y.S.3d 303
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7260

Citing Cases

Silva v. Progressive Ins. Co.

"CPLR 3101 (a) provides that [t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the…

Longo v. Fogg

Queens County, venue of the action commenced in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, should be transferred to…