Edelman v. Holmes Private Ambulances, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edelman v. Holmes Private Ambulances, Inc.

32 A.D.2d 563, 300 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4115

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

DecidedApril 28, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 563 (Edelman v. Holmes Private Ambulances, 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

Edelman v. Holmes Private Ambulances, Inc., 32 A.D.2d 563, 300 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 13, 1968, which, on plaintiff’s motion, directed that defendant be precluded from having its physician testify at the trial of the action unless a copy of the physician’s report be served upon plaintiff at least 30 days prior to the trial. Order reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, and motion denied. The report of defendant’s physician, based solely on the hospital records and not on a physical or clinical examination of plaintiff, is not available to plaintiff as part of the conventional exchange of medical information in a negligence action (CPLR 3121; Freiman v. Miller, 28 A D 2d 1126). Failure by defendant to serve such a medical report on plaintiff, under these circumstances, would not preclude the testimony of the physician at the trial (Smith v. Schulman, 28 A D 2d 922, 923). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, 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 personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 13, 1968, which, on plaintiff’s motion, directed that defendant be precluded from having its physician testify at the trial of the action unless a copy of the physician’s report be served upon plaintiff at least 30 days prior to the trial. Order reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, and motion denied. The report of defendant’s physician, based solely on the hospital records and not on a physical or clinical examination of plaintiff, is not available to plaintiff as part of the conventional exchange of medical information in a negligence action (CPLR 3121; Freiman v. Miller, 28 A D 2d 1126). Failure by defendant to serve such a medical report on plaintiff, under these circumstances, would not preclude the testimony of the physician at the trial (Smith v. Schulman, 28 A D 2d 922, 923). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 563, 300 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelman-v-holmes-private-ambulances-inc-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack