Ludden v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co.

38 A.D.2d 783, 328 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5571
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 783 (Ludden v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co.) 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
Ludden v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co., 38 A.D.2d 783, 328 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Order, insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without prejudice to a renewal thereof on proper papers. Memorandum: Plaintiff seeks an examination before trial of certain physicians as agents of defendant under CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [1]). His affidavit alleges simply that he was directed by defendant to consult these physicians, who are company surgeons ” as indicated on a list furnished by defendant and attached to the affidavit, and that all expenses for treatment were paid by defendant. While we agree with the court below that the opposing affidavit by an attorney is entitled to little weight, nevertheless, it was error to direct the examination upon plaintiff’s affidavit which fails to show a relationship between the physicians and defendant justifying disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [1]). Whatever may be the relationship for purposes of liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, the affidavit is insufficient to permit a determination that the physicians are within the control of defendant such that an examination under the section relied on may be ordered. The ease of O’Donnell v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (122 F. Supp. 899) relied on by the court at Special Term, is distinguishable by the proof there presented that the physicians who treated plaintiff were directly supervised by members of defendant’s medical staff, received payment of periodic wages and worked regular hours for the carrier. (Appeal from parts of order of Allegany Special Term directing production of certain persons and records.) Present—Del Vecchio, J. P, Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Related

Little v. Highland Hospital
280 A.D.2d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Broyles & Broyles, Inc. v. Rainbow Square, Ltd.
125 A.D.2d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
In re the Estate of Postley
125 Misc. 2d 416 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1984)
Thomas v. Queens Transit Corp.
59 A.D.2d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Della Valle v. City of Niagara Falls
54 A.D.2d 143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.2d 783, 328 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludden-v-erie-lackawanna-railway-co-nyappdiv-1972.