English v. English

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

English v. English

26 A.D.2d 931, 276 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2989

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 931 (English v. English) 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

English v. English, 26 A.D.2d 931, 276 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on September 27, 1966, unanimously modified, on the law. the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to limit the physical examination to exclude radical or operative procedures. While we agree that the plaintiff is entitled to have the physical examination of defendant that she seeks, we find that the notice calling for such examination is too broad in that there is no protection against the use of radical or extensive operative procedures in the examination. The defendant should be protected in this respect and the order to be entered should set forth the procedures to be used. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, entered on September 27, 1966, unanimously modified, on the law. the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to limit the physical examination to exclude radical or operative procedures. While we agree that the plaintiff is entitled to have the physical examination of defendant that she seeks, we find that the notice calling for such examination is too broad in that there is no protection against the use of radical or extensive operative procedures in the examination. The defendant should be protected in this respect and the order to be entered should set forth the procedures to be used. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 931, 276 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-english-nyappdiv-1966.