Barenboim v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barenboim v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

250 A.D.2d 413, 671 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5391

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 12, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered September 15, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a malfunctioning elevator, denied defendant and third-party plaintiff elevator maintenance company’s motion (1) to amend its third-party complaint against plaintiff’s employer so as to include claims that plaintiffs injuries were aggravated by the employer’s post-accident violations of duties it owed to plaintiff under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Law and Executive Law, and (2) to compel plaintiff to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Leave to amend the third-party complaint was properly denied for lack of any evidentiary support for the proposed causes of action. The requested examination of plaintiff by a vocational rehabilitation expert was properly denied since disclosure under CPLR 3121 does not.extend to an examination of a party by someone other than a physician (Agli v Turner Constr. Co., 241 AD2d 312). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered September 15, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a malfunctioning elevator, denied defendant and third-party plaintiff elevator maintenance company’s motion (1) to amend its third-party complaint against plaintiff’s employer so as to include claims that plaintiffs injuries were aggravated by the employer’s post-accident violations of duties it owed to plaintiff under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Law and Executive Law, and (2) to compel plaintiff to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Leave to amend the third-party complaint was properly denied for lack of any evidentiary support for the proposed causes of action. The requested examination of plaintiff by a vocational rehabilitation expert was properly denied since disclosure under CPLR 3121 does not.extend to an examination of a party by someone other than a physician (Agli v Turner Constr. Co., 241 AD2d 312). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Barenboim v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 250 A.D.2d 413, 671 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 413 (Barenboim v. Schindler Elevator Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related