Louis v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Louis v. Cohen

221 A.D.2d 509, 633 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11999

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 509 (Louis v. Cohen) 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

Louis v. Cohen, 221 A.D.2d 509, 633 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for podiatric malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated July 21, 1994, as denied his motion to compel the plaintiff to submit to a complete physical examination including X-rays at the office of the defendant’s examining podiatrist.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the plaintiff is directed to submit to the exam in question at the office of the defendant’s examining podiatrist.

Under the circumstances, where the defendant seeks to take X-rays in connection with the physical examination of the plaintiff, a well-established right, the examination must be conducted in a physician’s office (see, Mealy v Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 145 AD2d 413). This determination reflects the common sense notion that medical examinations are more properly conducted in medical offices rather than in the offices of an attorney (see, Resnick v Seher, 198 AD2d 218). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 podiatric malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated July 21, 1994, as denied his motion to compel the plaintiff to submit to a complete physical examination including X-rays at the office of the defendant’s examining podiatrist.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the plaintiff is directed to submit to the exam in question at the office of the defendant’s examining podiatrist.

Under the circumstances, where the defendant seeks to take X-rays in connection with the physical examination of the plaintiff, a well-established right, the examination must be conducted in a physician’s office (see, Mealy v Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 145 AD2d 413). This determination reflects the common sense notion that medical examinations are more properly conducted in medical offices rather than in the offices of an attorney (see, Resnick v Seher, 198 AD2d 218). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 509, 633 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack