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

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

DecidedMay 12, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 413 (Barenboim v. Schindler Elevator 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 413, 671 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barenboim-v-schindler-elevator-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack