Gamboa v. Carney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gamboa v. Carney

250 A.D.2d 501, 672 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5861

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

DecidedMay 21, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 501 (Gamboa v. Carney) 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

Gamboa v. Carney, 250 A.D.2d 501, 672 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about July 30, 1997, which, in an action against defendant landlord to recover for exposure to lead paint, denied defendant’s motion for an order compelling the infant plaintiff to submit to a further physical examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that whatever might be the effect of aging on the progress or manifestation of an infant’s lead poisoning symptoms, aging is not an unusual or unanticipated circumstance warranting departure from the readiness rule prohibiting physical examinations after a note of issue is filed (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; see, Price v Bloomingdale’s, 166 AD2d 151). No excuse is offered for failing to seek this additional physical examination of the infant plaintiff no later than 20 days after the filing of the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about July 30, 1997, which, in an action against defendant landlord to recover for exposure to lead paint, denied defendant’s motion for an order compelling the infant plaintiff to submit to a further physical examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that whatever might be the effect of aging on the progress or manifestation of an infant’s lead poisoning symptoms, aging is not an unusual or unanticipated circumstance warranting departure from the readiness rule prohibiting physical examinations after a note of issue is filed (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; see, Price v Bloomingdale’s, 166 AD2d 151). No excuse is offered for failing to seek this additional physical examination of the infant plaintiff no later than 20 days after the filing of the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 501, 672 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamboa-v-carney-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack