Kerr v. Dunham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kerr v. Dunham

201 A.D.2d 936, 610 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2117

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 936 (Kerr v. Dunham) 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

Kerr v. Dunham, 201 A.D.2d 936, 610 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant failed to demonstrate special, unusual and extraordinary circumstances sufficient to authorize Supreme Court to permit defendant to conduct a physical examination of the injured plaintiff David A. Kerr more than five months after filing of the note of issue and statement of readiness (see, Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960; Levine v McFarland, 98 AD2d 795, 796). Under the circumstances, Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion and should have granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for a protective order. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant failed to demonstrate special, unusual and extraordinary circumstances sufficient to authorize Supreme Court to permit defendant to conduct a physical examination of the injured plaintiff David A. Kerr more than five months after filing of the note of issue and statement of readiness (see, Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960; Levine v McFarland, 98 AD2d 795, 796). Under the circumstances, Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion and should have granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for a protective order. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 936, 610 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-v-dunham-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack