Drame v. Ambulette P.R.N., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drame v. Ambulette P.R.N., Inc.

137 A.D.3d 631, 26 N.Y.S.3d 853

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2016

Docket578 301883/08

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 631 (Drame v. Ambulette P.R.N., Inc.) 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

Drame v. Ambulette P.R.N., Inc., 137 A.D.3d 631, 26 N.Y.S.3d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about September 24, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited from the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ neurologist, or in the alternative, to allow defendants to conduct a neurological exam and further orthopedic exam, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted to the extent indicated.

In view of plaintiffs’ noncompliance with 22 NYCRR 202.17, we believe the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion insofar as it denied defendants’ motion for a further physical examination by Dr. Frazier and a neurologist of the injured plaintiff. Such further examinations shall take place within 30 days of this order.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about September 24, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited from the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ neurologist, or in the alternative, to allow defendants to conduct a neurological exam and further orthopedic exam, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted to the extent indicated.

In view of plaintiffs’ noncompliance with 22 NYCRR 202.17, we believe the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion insofar as it denied defendants’ motion for a further physical examination by Dr. Frazier and a neurologist of the injured plaintiff. Such further examinations shall take place within 30 days of this order.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 631, 26 N.Y.S.3d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drame-v-ambulette-prn-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack