Baig v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baig v. City of New York

282 A.D.2d 386, 723 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 386 (Baig v. City of New York) 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

Baig v. City of New York, 282 A.D.2d 386, 723 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of third-party defendant’s motion as sought to strike plaintiffs’ note of issue on the ground that plaintiff failed to submit to a physical examination, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 8, 2000, which, to the extent appealable, denied third-party defendant’s motion for renewal of its motion for the relief denied in the February 3, 2000 order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At this very late stage in the litigation and under all the [387]*387other relevant circumstances, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in declining to order the physical examination sought by third-party defendant (see, Hamlin v Mensch, 205 AD2d 452, 453). In view of the propriety of the court’s determination with respect to ordering the sought physical examination, plaintiffs’ note of issue was properly left undisturbed (see, Attie v City of New York, 221 AD2d 274). Third-party defendant’s motion for renewal was properly denied in light of its failure to explain why the purportedly new material was not presented on the original motion (see, Wolkstein v Morgenstern, 261 AD2d 170). 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 (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of third-party defendant’s motion as sought to strike plaintiffs’ note of issue on the ground that plaintiff failed to submit to a physical examination, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 8, 2000, which, to the extent appealable, denied third-party defendant’s motion for renewal of its motion for the relief denied in the February 3, 2000 order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At this very late stage in the litigation and under all the [387]*387other relevant circumstances, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in declining to order the physical examination sought by third-party defendant (see, Hamlin v Mensch, 205 AD2d 452, 453). In view of the propriety of the court’s determination with respect to ordering the sought physical examination, plaintiffs’ note of issue was properly left undisturbed (see, Attie v City of New York, 221 AD2d 274). Third-party defendant’s motion for renewal was properly denied in light of its failure to explain why the purportedly new material was not presented on the original motion (see, Wolkstein v Morgenstern, 261 AD2d 170). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 386, 723 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baig-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack