DeGregorio v. Niagara Falls City School District

281 A.D.2d 889, 722 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2745
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 889 (DeGregorio v. Niagara Falls City School District) 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
DeGregorio v. Niagara Falls City School District, 281 A.D.2d 889, 722 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinions

—Order reversed on the law without costs and application denied. Memorandum: On December 13, 1999, claimants served a notice of claim upon respondent for personal injuries sustained by their infant daughter at school. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (1) and (2), respondent served a demand for examinations of claimants and their daughter on February 21, 2000, scheduling the examinations for March 22, 2000. Claimants’ attorney indicated that his clients would not submit to section 50-h examinations at that time. Subsequent attempts by respondent to reschedule the section 50-h examinations were unsuccessful. Respondent made an application in Supreme Court seeking an order compelling the examinations under oath of claimants and their infant daughter pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h. The court erred in granting the application and ordering claimants and their daughter to appear for examinations on July 19, 2000. [890]*890Where, as here, claimants fail to comply with a demand for examinations, a municipality may move to dismiss any subsequently commenced action based upon that failure (see generally, Ambroziak v County of Erie, 177 AD2d 974). It is at that point that claimants’ reasons for failing to comply with the demand should be asserted and the validity of the reason assessed by the court (see, Best v City of New York, 97 AD2d 389, affd 61 NY2d 847). There is no authority, however, for respondent’s application to the court to compel claimants and their daughter to comply with the demand where, as here, no action is pending between the parties (cf., Alouette Fashions v Consolidated Edison Co., 119 AD2d 481, 485-486, affd 69 NY2d 787).

All concur except Hayes and Lawton, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following Memorandum:

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

Related

First Church in Albany of Reformed Church in America v. State
192 Misc. 2d 66 (New York State Court of Claims, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D.2d 889, 722 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/degregorio-v-niagara-falls-city-school-district-nyappdiv-2001.