Case Name: Gorman, Naim and Musa, M.D., P. C., et al., Appellants, v. ABJ Fire Protection, Inc., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. A. Zaborny Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Diagnostic Therapeutic Associates, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (Action No. 1.); Norstar Bank of Upstate New York et al., Plaintiffs, v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation et al., Respondents, and Diagnostic Therapeutic Associates, Appellant. A. Zaborny Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Gorman, Naim and Musa, M.D., P. C., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-07-16
Citations: 195 A.D.2d 1062
Docket Number: Appeal No. 1
Parties: Gorman, Naim and Musa, M.D., P. C., et al., Appellants, v ABJ Fire Protection, Inc., Respondent and Third- Party Plaintiff-Respondent. A. Zaborny Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Diagnostic Therapeutic Associates, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Norstar Bank of Upstate New York et al., Plaintiffs, v Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation et al., Respondents, and Diagnostic Therapeutic Associates, Appellant. A. Zaborny Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Gorman, Naim and Musa, M.D., P. C., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 195
Pages: 1062–1063

Head Matter:
Gorman, Naim and Musa, M.D., P. C., et al., Appellants, v ABJ Fire Protection, Inc., Respondent and Third- Party Plaintiff-Respondent. A. Zaborny Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Diagnostic Therapeutic Associates, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Norstar Bank of Upstate New York et al., Plaintiffs, v Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation et al., Respondents, and Diagnostic Therapeutic Associates, Appellant. A. Zaborny Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Gorman, Naim and Musa, M.D., P. C., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
(Appeal No. 1.)
[601 NYS2d 883]

Opinion:
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court's order directing a deposition of plaintiffs'-third-party defendants' expert limited to his factual observations was not an abuse of discretion under the special circumstances existing here (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]; Rosario v General Motors Corp., 148 AD2d 108; Morrison v Ellis, 91 AD2d 1172; see also, Krygier v Airweld, Inc., 176 AD2d 700). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Reagan, J.— Protective Order.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.