Anonymous v. Anonymous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anonymous v. Anonymous

279 A.D.2d 353, 718 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 419

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 353 (Anonymous v. Anonymous) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anonymous v. Anonymous, 279 A.D.2d 353, 718 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered July 26, 2000, which, in an action for divorce, denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff and the parties’ child to submit to an examination by defendant’s forensic expert, and directed defendant to submit to an examination by the forensic expert previously appointed by the court pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was properly directed to submit to examination by the previously appointed forensic expert absent any showing of bias on the part of the expert or of some inadequacy in her already conducted examination of plaintiff and the parties’ child. Moreover, even if further evaluations of plaintiff and the child were necessary, an expert unilaterally chosen by one side would not be an appropriate choice (see, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 AD2d 292, 294-296). So much of defendant’s argument as addresses the motion court’s decision to reduce plaintiff’s visitation is unreviewable since the record does not contain the order that the motion court directed be settled to implement such decision (see, Gunn v Palmieri, 86 NY2d 830; Murray Hill Manor Co. v Destination Paradise, 266 AD2d 132). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered July 26, 2000, which, in an action for divorce, denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff and the parties’ child to submit to an examination by defendant’s forensic expert, and directed defendant to submit to an examination by the forensic expert previously appointed by the court pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was properly directed to submit to examination by the previously appointed forensic expert absent any showing of bias on the part of the expert or of some inadequacy in her already conducted examination of plaintiff and the parties’ child. Moreover, even if further evaluations of plaintiff and the child were necessary, an expert unilaterally chosen by one side would not be an appropriate choice (see, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 AD2d 292, 294-296). So much of defendant’s argument as addresses the motion court’s decision to reduce plaintiff’s visitation is unreviewable since the record does not contain the order that the motion court directed be settled to implement such decision (see, Gunn v Palmieri, 86 NY2d 830; Murray Hill Manor Co. v Destination Paradise, 266 AD2d 132). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 353, 718 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anonymous-v-anonymous-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack