Foley v. Am. Indep. Paper Mills Supply Co., 222 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Foley v. Am. Indep. Paper Mills Supply Co., 222 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Conway v. Elite Towing & Flatbedding Corp. (nyappdiv, 2016-01-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Conway v. Elite Towing & Flatbedding Corp. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to compel the defendants to provide further disclosure regard *894 ing the anticipated testimonies of their expert witnesses (see Foley v American Ind. Paper Mills Supply Co., 222 AD2d 401, 402 [1995]; Nedell v St.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Cannon Design, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Notably, there is no requirement that the expert set forth the specific facts and opinions upon which he or she is expected to testify, but rather only the substance of those facts and opinions (see Barrowman v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 252 AD2d 946, 946-947 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 817 [1998]; Foley v American Ind. Paper Mills Supply Co., 222 AD2d 401, 402 [1995]; Krygier v Airweld, Inc., 176 AD2d 700, 701 [1991]; Renucci v Mercy Hosp., 124 AD2d 796, 797 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Cannon Design, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Notably, there is no requirement that the expert set forth the specific facts and opinions upon which he or she is expected to testify, but rather only the substance of those facts and opinions (see Barrowman v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 252 AD2d 946, 946-947 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 817 [1998]; Foley v American Ind. Paper Mills Supply Co., 222 AD2d 401, 402 [1995]; Krygier v Airweld, Inc., 176 AD2d 700, 701 [1991]; Renucci v Mercy Hosp., 124 AD2d 796, 797 [1986]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rose C. Foley
v.
American Independent Paper Mills Supply Co., Inc., , (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 4, 1995.
222 A.D.2d 401
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants American Independent Paper Mills Supply Co., Inc., and Gloria J. Baselice appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated December 6, 1994, as denied the branch of their motion which was to compel the plaintiff to provide further discovery about her expert witnesses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As a general rule, the scope of disclosure is entrusted to the Supreme Court (see, Nedell v St. George’s Golf & Country Club, 203 AD2d 121). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying further discovery about the plaintiff’s experts. The plaintiff’s disclosure met the minimum statutory requirement for disclosure set forth in CPLR 3101 (d). Any further disclosure would improperly force the plaintiff to reveal the facts upon which her experts are expected to testify (see, Krygier v Airweld, Inc., 176 AD2d 700). Moreover, this relatively straightforward automobile accident case does not require the extensive discovery urged by the appellants. Thompson, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.