Dominguez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

168 A.D.2d 376, 562 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15514
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 376 (Dominguez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating 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
Dominguez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 168 A.D.2d 376, 562 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about January 12, 1990, which granted, inter alia, defendant’s motion to the extent of directing plaintiff to submit to a neurological examination before trial while keeping the matter on the Trial Calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant moved to vacate the note of issue and to strike the action from the Trial Calendar so that it could conduct a neurological/psychological examination of plaintiff. Generally, the failure to move to vacate a note of issue and certificate of readiness within 20 days of service constitutes a waiver of the right to conduct a subsequent physical examination, absent a showing of special circumstances or adequate reason for the delay (Sewell v Singh, 160 AD2d 592). Nevertheless, in certain circumstances where no prejudice would result, a party may be relieved of its waiver (Williams v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 147 AD2d 558).

The instant record clearly establishes the need for a neurological/psychological examination of plaintiff by defendant in view of plaintiff’s physicians’ findings. In this regard, the prior orthopedic examination is irrelevant, as defendant is entitled to have the opinion of an expert in neurology, a different medical discipline. (See, Rouen v Chrysler Credit Corp., 145 AD2d 381, 382.) Further, there is no prejudice to plaintiff as the IAS court directed that the matter remain on the Trial [377]*377Calendar. (Williams v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., supra.) Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Wallach, JJ.

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

Related

Aull v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 32472(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Cabrera v. Abaev
2017 NY Slip Op 4084 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Cuprill v. Citywide Towing & Auto Repair Services
2017 NY Slip Op 2729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Harris v. Christian Church of Canarsie, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
DANIELS, ERICA v. RUMSEY, FRANCES A.
111 A.D.3d 1408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Gitto v. Scamoni
62 A.D.3d 1232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Acevedo v. New York City Transit Authority
294 A.D.2d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
May v. American Red Cross
282 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Streicker v. Adir Rent A Car Inc.
279 A.D.2d 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Glover v. New York City Transit Authority
278 A.D.2d 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Brown v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
256 A.D.2d 17 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Law v. City of New York
250 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Fitzgerald v. Avidon
222 A.D.2d 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Urena v. Bruprat Realty Corp.
179 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Verrengio v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
177 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Lapson v. Hertz Corp.
169 A.D.2d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A.D.2d 376, 562 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominguez-v-manhattan-bronx-surface-transit-operating-authority-nyappdiv-1990.