Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Weatherbee Construction Corp. v. Miele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 28, 2000

270 A.D.2d 182; 705 N.Y.S.2d 222; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3326

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Singh v. PGA Tour, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
17 East Owners Corp. v. Madison 96th Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Kelly v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Santos v. Nicolas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Rivera v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
George C. Miller Brick Co. v. Stark Ceramics, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered March 12, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondents’ motion to preclude appellant from offering evidence at trial as to (1) its efforts to protect the subject premises during the pendency of the underlying action, (2) the propriety of the City’s decision to demolish the premises and (3) any and all actions undertaken by the City to demolish or shore up the building, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

183

No appeal lies from an evidentiary ruling made before trial; such a ruling is reviewable only in connection with the appeal from the judgment rendered after trial (see, Matter of Grusetz, 248 AD2d 618; Roman v City of New York, 187 AD2d 390). In any event, were we to consider the determination of the IAS Court on the merits, we would find that it was well within the court’s discretion to preclude introduction of the subject evidence, which was not relevant to any of the issues involved in the pending trial. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.