| Fontana v LaRosa |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05357 [74 AD3d 1016] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gary Fontana et al., Respondents, v Charles LaRosa et al.,Defendants, and Tameshwar Ammar, Appellant. |
—[*1] Law Offices of Joseph M. Lichtenstein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Gregory Green of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant TameshwarAmmar appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated May 18,2009, which denied his motion to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness or todirect that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013[1923]).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The order appealed from, which denied the appellant's motion to preclude certain testimonyof the plaintiffs' expert witness or to direct that witness to submit to a hearing pursuant toFrye v United States (293 F 1013 [1923]), was, in effect, an evidentiary ruling. Such aruling, "even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisoryopinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission" (Savarese v City of N.Y.Hous. Auth., 172 AD2d 506, 509 [1991]; see Hering v Lighthouse 2001, LLC, 21 AD3d 449, 451-452[2005]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.