Gill v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 265, 670 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 6, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 265 (Gill v. United Parcel Service, 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
Gill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 265, 670 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action to recover [266]*266damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from a transcript of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 19, 1997, and (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated June 24, 1997, as granted the defendants’ motion,, inter alia, to compel him to submit to orthopedic and neurological examinations by the defendants’ doctors to the extent of directing that he submit to certain examinations on condition that the defendants pay $1,000 to his attorney.

Ordered that the appeal from the transcript dated June 19, 1997, is dismissed, as the transcript is not a paper from which an appeal can be taken (see, Ojeda v Metropolitan Playhouse, 120 AD2d 717; CPLR 2219 [a]; 5512 [a]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 24, 1997, is reversed insofar as appealed from, and the motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill qf costs.

The defendants waived their right to conduct physical exáminations of the plaintiff when they failed to arrange for the examinations to be conducted during the time period set by the court in its preliminary conference order and, thereafter, when they again failed to conduct the examinations within the time period set in the court’s order of August 28, 1996 (see, Kanterman v Palmiotti, 122 AD2d 116; Levine v McFarland, 98 AD2d 795). Since the matter has now been restored to the Trial Calendar, the defendants were required to show the existence of unusual or unanticipated circumstances, which developed subsequent to the time of such reinstatement, before the Supreme Court could grant additional pretrial proceedings, i.e., the requested physical examinations. Since the defendants failed to do so, the Supreme Court was without authority to permit additional pretrial proceedings and imprevidently, exercised its discretion by allowing physical examinations of the plaintiff at this time oh condition that the defendants pay a sanction (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Mayo v Lincoln Triangle Assocs., 248 AD2d 362).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination. Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Manzo v. City of New York
62 A.D.3d 964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rodriguez v. Sau Wo Lau
298 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Thevening v. Jian Young Ye
297 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Garcia v. Munnerlyn
191 Misc. 2d 689 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2002)
James v. New York City Transit Authority
294 A.D.2d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Parente v. New York Times Co.
277 A.D.2d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Porter v. Burgey
266 A.D.2d 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Vitello v. JAM Installers, Inc.
264 A.D.2d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 265, 670 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-united-parcel-service-inc-nyappdiv-1998.