Fitzgerald v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Inc.

290 A.D.2d 481, 736 N.Y.S.2d 253, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 604

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 481 (Fitzgerald v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 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

Fitzgerald v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Inc., 290 A.D.2d 481, 736 N.Y.S.2d 253, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Robert Cole Tozer, as administrator of the estate of Frank J. Sardone, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated March 16, 2001, as granted his motion for additional discovery only to the extent of directing the injured plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by a nephrologist.

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

In support of his motion for additional discovery made more than 20 days after a note of issue was filed, the appellant had [482]*482to demonstrate that “unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed] subsequent to the filing of [the] note of issue and certificate of readiness which require[d] additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice” (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; see, Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135). With the exception of his request that the injured plaintiff submit to a physical examination by a nephrologist, the appellant failed to satisfy this standard. Ritter, Acting P.J., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, 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, etc., the defendant Robert Cole Tozer, as administrator of the estate of Frank J. Sardone, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated March 16, 2001, as granted his motion for additional discovery only to the extent of directing the injured plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by a nephrologist.

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

In support of his motion for additional discovery made more than 20 days after a note of issue was filed, the appellant had [482]*482to demonstrate that “unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed] subsequent to the filing of [the] note of issue and certificate of readiness which require[d] additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice” (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; see, Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135). With the exception of his request that the injured plaintiff submit to a physical examination by a nephrologist, the appellant failed to satisfy this standard. Ritter, Acting P.J., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 481, 736 N.Y.S.2d 253, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-enterprise-rent-a-car-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack