Hamlin v. Mensch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamlin v. Mensch

205 A.D.2d 452, 613 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedJune 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 452 (Hamlin v. Mensch) 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

Hamlin v. Mensch, 205 A.D.2d 452, 613 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1993, [453]*453which denied defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s note of issue and to compel a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel a physical examination of plaintiff where defendant failed to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.17 by objecting or otherwise timely responding to plaintiff’s notice of availability for physical examination, which was served together with various medical and hospital reports and authorizations that defendant had demanded (see, Becker v Chmura, 139 AD2d 826), and did not seek such physical examination until after plaintiff had filed a note of issue, approximately a year and a half after the notice of availability (compare, De Chiaro v Rendell, 95 AD2d 792). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1993, [453]*453which denied defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s note of issue and to compel a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel a physical examination of plaintiff where defendant failed to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.17 by objecting or otherwise timely responding to plaintiff’s notice of availability for physical examination, which was served together with various medical and hospital reports and authorizations that defendant had demanded (see, Becker v Chmura, 139 AD2d 826), and did not seek such physical examination until after plaintiff had filed a note of issue, approximately a year and a half after the notice of availability (compare, De Chiaro v Rendell, 95 AD2d 792). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 452, 613 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamlin-v-mensch-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack