Court Opinion

ID: 4083498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-07 23:46:59.518066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:23.857846
License: Public Domain

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered June 17, 2013. The order, among other things, denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking to strike parts of a report submitted by defendants’ expert.
 

  It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
 

 
   *1432
   
  Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of their motion seeking to strike parts of a report submitted by defendants’ expert. Before a note of issue was filed and before there was any expert disclosure between the parties
  
   (cf. Heyward v Shanne,
  
  114 AD3d 1212, 1213-1214 [2014]), plaintiffs moved in part pursuant to CPLR 3103 and 22 NYCRR 100.3 (B) (5) for an order striking all references in the report “to socio-economic, eugenic, or other euthenics as an alternative intervening event sufficient to supersede cause.” We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion inasmuch as neither CPLR 3103 nor 22 NYCRR 100.3 (B) (5) authorizes the court to grant the relief sought by plaintiffs.
 

  Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Whalen, JJ.