Antonelli v. Yale Materials Handling Corp.

239 A.D.2d 951, 660 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 30, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 951 (Antonelli v. Yale Materials Handling Corp.) 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
Antonelli v. Yale Materials Handling Corp., 239 A.D.2d 951, 660 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motions granted. Memorandum: Yale Materials Handling Corporation (defendant) and third-party defendant, Upstate Milk Cooperatives, Inc., appeal from an order denying their motions to compel Vincent Antonelli (plaintiff) to submit to examination by a psychiatrist designated by third-party defendant and, in the course of such psychiatric examination, to submit to testing by a psychologist supervised by the psychiatrist. Defendant and third-party defendant contend that plaintiff should be compelled to submit to psychological testing because his mental condition is in controversy and the testing is sought for the purpose of aiding the supervising psychiatrist in evaluating such condition.

Given the circumstances, in which two of plaintiff’s treating physicians have speculated that there is a psychological or "factitious” element to plaintiff’s complaints and have referred plaintiff for psychiatric evaluation, we conclude that plaintiff’s psychological status is "in controversy,” thus requiring plaintiff to submit to examination by a psychiatrist designated by the defense (CPLR 3121 [a]; see generally, Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294). Further, nothing in the CPLR precludes psychological testing, provided that it is performed by or under the supervision of a physician (see, Rook v 60 Key Centre, 237 AD2d 901 [decided herewith], citing Paris v Waterman S. S. Corp., 218 AD2d 561, 563-564; cf., Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v Stamm, 237 AD2d 145). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Knauer v. Anderson
184 Misc. 2d 621 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
Greene v. Xerox Corp.
244 A.D.2d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 951, 660 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonelli-v-yale-materials-handling-corp-nyappdiv-1997.