Fitzgerald v. Avidon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald v. Avidon

222 A.D.2d 335, 636 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 335 (Fitzgerald v. Avidon) 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

Fitzgerald v. Avidon, 222 A.D.2d 335, 636 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered April 10, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances presented here, where plaintiff has never been physically examined, and where the case remains on the trial calendar for an assessment of damages, it was a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the court to have directed a physical examination of plaintiff, even though more than 20 days had elapsed from the filing of plaintiff’s note of issue and certificate of readiness (see, Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 AD2d 376). We also note that plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars alleging an additional serious injury. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered April 10, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances presented here, where plaintiff has never been physically examined, and where the case remains on the trial calendar for an assessment of damages, it was a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the court to have directed a physical examination of plaintiff, even though more than 20 days had elapsed from the filing of plaintiff’s note of issue and certificate of readiness (see, Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 AD2d 376). We also note that plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars alleging an additional serious injury. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 335, 636 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-avidon-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack