Legal Opinion

Beliavskaia v. Perkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 16, 1996PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about December 21,1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preserve Ms. Beliavskaia’s testimony by videotape, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An affidavit showing unusual or unanticipated circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule foreclosing discovery after the filing of a note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]) was not required here since the relief sought was not in the nature of discovery (cf., Hill v Sheehan, 154 AD2d 912).

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hill v. SheehanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Magee v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Jones v. SherpaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Brandes v. North Shore University HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API