Guerra v. McBean

127 A.D.3d 462, 4 N.Y.S.3d 526
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 2015
Docket14787N 308845/12
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 462 (Guerra v. McBean) 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
Guerra v. McBean, 127 A.D.3d 462, 4 N.Y.S.3d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2014, which denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to appear for further orthopedic examinations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to establish that plaintiffs’ representative’s presence at their physical examinations deprived defendants of the ability to conduct meaningful examinations (see CPLR 3121 [a]; Tucker v Bay Shore Stor. Warehouse, Inc., 69 AD3d 609, 609-610 [2d Dept 2010]; cf. Orsos v Hudson Tr. Corp., 95 AD3d 526 [1st Dept 2012] [court directed a second IME of plaintiff where defendants’ IME physician reflected a potential bias toward plaintiff by recommending that she treat with his partner after the litigation concluded]). Defendants’ expert’s lengthy reports relating to the examinations reflect that he was able to perform range of motion and other testing and issue unequivocal diagnoses, and gave no indication that further examinations were required (see Bravo v Vargas, 113 AD3d 577, 579 [2d Dept 2014]; Jakubowski v Lengen, 86 AD2d 398, 400-402 [4th Dept 1982] [defendant made no showing that presence of law clerk from plaintiffs counsel’s office interfered with IME]; cf. Chaudhary v Gold, 83 AD3d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2011] [neuropsychological IME granted upon defendants’ submission of supporting expert affidavit after plaintiff had undergone neurological and neuropsychiatric IMEs]). To the limited extent that questions were not answered during the examinations, the *463 court appropriately directed plaintiffs to provide affidavits as to the missing responses.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Related

Reyes v. 1650 Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 30973(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Domingo v. 541 Operating Corp.
187 N.Y.S.3d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Gonzalez v. Red Hook Container Term., LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 04924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Markel v. Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 2049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Santana v. Johnson
2017 NY Slip Op 6997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Henderson v. Ross
2017 NY Slip Op 1186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.3d 462, 4 N.Y.S.3d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerra-v-mcbean-nyappdiv-2015.