Dragotta v. Southampton Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dragotta v. Southampton Hospital

295 A.D.2d 557, 744 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 557 (Dragotta v. Southampton Hospital) 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

Dragotta v. Southampton Hospital, 295 A.D.2d 557, 744 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Leonard Leonardi appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated September 24, 2001, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to direct the appellant to appear for an examination before trial, and denied his motion for a protective order with respect to the examination before trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the appellant to submit to an examination before trial, and in denying his cross motion for a protective order (see CPLR 3126; Espinal v City of New York, 264 AD2d 806; Nicoletti v Ozram Transp., 286 AD2d 719; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374, 375; Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615, 616). The conclusory affirmation of the appellant’s psychiatrist in support of the motion was insufficient to establish that the appellant’s health would be endangered if he submitted to an examination before trial. We note that contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not conditionally strike his answer, but instead, merely directed [558]*558him to appear for an examination before trial on a certain date. O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Leonard Leonardi appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated September 24, 2001, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to direct the appellant to appear for an examination before trial, and denied his motion for a protective order with respect to the examination before trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the appellant to submit to an examination before trial, and in denying his cross motion for a protective order (see CPLR 3126; Espinal v City of New York, 264 AD2d 806; Nicoletti v Ozram Transp., 286 AD2d 719; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374, 375; Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615, 616). The conclusory affirmation of the appellant’s psychiatrist in support of the motion was insufficient to establish that the appellant’s health would be endangered if he submitted to an examination before trial. We note that contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not conditionally strike his answer, but instead, merely directed [558]*558him to appear for an examination before trial on a certain date. O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 557, 744 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dragotta-v-southampton-hospital-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack