Arnold v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arnold v. New York City Housing Authority

282 A.D.2d 378, 723 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4138

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 378 (Arnold v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Arnold v. New York City Housing Authority, 282 A.D.2d 378, 723 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered July 19, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion insofar as it sought to vacate plaintiffs note of issue and to compel plaintiff to submit to a further medical examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to vacate plaintiffs note of issue, served more than 20 days after the note of issue had been served, was properly denied as untimely (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]), no showing of special circumstances or adequate reason for the delay having been offered (see, Franck v Quinones, 65 AD2d 518; Jacobs v Peress, 23 AD2d 483). Also properly denied was defendant’s request for a third physical examination of plaintiff; defendant had, after all, signed a “so-ordered” stipulation permitting plaintiff to file her note of issue, and, prior thereto, had conducted extensive orthopedic and neurological physical examinations of plaintiff. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered July 19, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion insofar as it sought to vacate plaintiffs note of issue and to compel plaintiff to submit to a further medical examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to vacate plaintiffs note of issue, served more than 20 days after the note of issue had been served, was properly denied as untimely (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]), no showing of special circumstances or adequate reason for the delay having been offered (see, Franck v Quinones, 65 AD2d 518; Jacobs v Peress, 23 AD2d 483). Also properly denied was defendant’s request for a third physical examination of plaintiff; defendant had, after all, signed a “so-ordered” stipulation permitting plaintiff to file her note of issue, and, prior thereto, had conducted extensive orthopedic and neurological physical examinations of plaintiff. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 378, 723 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack