Kennedy v. Mahopac Central School District

120 A.D.3d 1394, 992 N.Y.S.2d 584
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 24, 2014
Docket2013-04376
StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1394 (Kennedy v. Mahopac Central School District) 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
Kennedy v. Mahopac Central School District, 120 A.D.3d 1394, 992 N.Y.S.2d 584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Mahopac Central School District appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Lubell, J.), dated March 28, 2013, as denied its motion to compel the plaintiff Donna Kennedy and nonparty Damian Kennedy, Sr., to submit to a psychiatric examination by Harold J. Bursztajn.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to compel the plaintiff Donna Kennedy and nonparty Damian Kennedy, Sr. (hereinafter together the parents), to submit to a psychiatric examination by Harold J. Bursztajn. Damian Kennedy, Sr., is not a party to this action, nor is he “an agent, employee or person in the custody or under the legal control of a party,” and his mental condition is not in controversy (CPLR 3121 [a]). As to the plaintiff Donna Kennedy, the complaint contains a claim on her behalf for the loss of services, society, and companionship of her son. The complaint does not allege that she suffered psychiatric or psychological injuries. Thus, her mental condition also is not in controversy pursuant to CPLR 3121 (a). Further, in the context of this case, the burden of subjecting the parents to psychiatric examinations, which would involve private and highly personal matters, outweighs the alleged necessity for the information sought (see CPLR 3101 [a]; Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 747 [2000]; Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 954 [1998]).

Balkin, J.R, Leventhal, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp.
705 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates
731 N.E.2d 589 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.3d 1394, 992 N.Y.S.2d 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-mahopac-central-school-district-nyappdiv-2014.