Jones v. Elmers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Elmers

24 A.D.2d 867, 264 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 867 (Jones v. Elmers) 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

Jones v. Elmers, 24 A.D.2d 867, 264 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, by permission of this court, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, entered May 22, 1964, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, Queens County, entered July 17, 1963, denying defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiffs’ statement of readiness and to strike the action from the Trial Calendar. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed, without costs. Appellant cannot invoke our Special Rule, effective March 1, 1962, which is applicable to physical examinations and exchange of medical information. The rule pertains to “ the party to be examined.” In serving notice under the rule, plaintiffs proceeded on the assumption that the infants would be examined by defendant. When defendant failed to serve notice, required under the rule, of the name and address of his examining physician, it was made clear to plaintiffs that defendant would not examine and, therefore, the rule was inapplicable. In consequence, defendant may not invoke the rule to procure a copy of the report of the plaintiffs’ examining physician to be exchanged, Under the rule, for a copy of the report of the defendant’s examining physician. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, 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, the defendant appeals, by permission of this court, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, entered May 22, 1964, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, Queens County, entered July 17, 1963, denying defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiffs’ statement of readiness and to strike the action from the Trial Calendar. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed, without costs. Appellant cannot invoke our Special Rule, effective March 1, 1962, which is applicable to physical examinations and exchange of medical information. The rule pertains to “ the party to be examined.” In serving notice under the rule, plaintiffs proceeded on the assumption that the infants would be examined by defendant. When defendant failed to serve notice, required under the rule, of the name and address of his examining physician, it was made clear to plaintiffs that defendant would not examine and, therefore, the rule was inapplicable. In consequence, defendant may not invoke the rule to procure a copy of the report of the plaintiffs’ examining physician to be exchanged, Under the rule, for a copy of the report of the defendant’s examining physician. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 867, 264 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-elmers-nyappdiv-1965.