Citlak v. Nassau County Medical Center
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. Network Adjusters, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Washington v. Todd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Thornhill v. Degen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Dupree v. Voorhees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Dupree v. Voorhees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- County of Orange v. Monroe Bakertown Road Realty, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Swezey v. Montague Rehab & Pain Management (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Boeke v. Our Lady of Pompei School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Cortez v. Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Rosenfeld v. Baker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Innovative Transmission & Engine Co., LLC v. Massaro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
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
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated February 8, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted those branches of the defendant’s motion in limine which were to preclude them from offering certain expert testimony at trial.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court’s determination precluding the plaintiffs’ experts from testifying as to certain opinions at trial was an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, even when made “in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion, which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” (Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc., 283 AD2d 537 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Winograd, v Price, 21 AD3d 956 [2005]).
In light of our determination, we do not pass upon the propriety of conducting a Frye hearing (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]) under the facts of this case or of the results reached by the Supreme Court. Goldstein, J.P, Skelos, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.