Legal Opinion
Buhler v. Sheridan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 10, 1987PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
— Appeal unanimously dismissed with costs. Memorandum: We hold that an order deferring determination of a motion to compel discovery until after an in camera inspection of certain materials by the court does not affect a substantial right (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; cf., Howell v Independent Union, 112 AD2d 754; Bagdy v Progresso Foods Corp., 86 AD2d 589). A party aggrieved by an order entered after the court’s in camera inspection may take an appeal (see, Matter of Summers v Faust, 110 AD2d 643). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Donovan, J. — discovery.) Present — Dillon,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bagdy v. Progresso Foods Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Howell v. Independent Union of Plant Protection EmployeesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Summers v. FaustAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mahoney v. StaffaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Garcia v. Montefiore Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Matter of Joseph OO. (Joel OO.)Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Cassidy v. Livingston CountyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2026
- Statt v. GoldsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993