Kerr v. Dunham

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

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

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).

201 A.D.2d 936 (Kerr v. Dunham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Levine v. McFarland
98 A.D.2d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Laudico v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
125 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)