Maus v. Nisbet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maus v. Nisbet

15 A.D.2d 785, 224 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11728

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 785 (Maus v. Nisbet) 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

Maus v. Nisbet, 15 A.D.2d 785, 224 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

It was improper to condition receipt by the plaintiff of a copy of the report of her physical examination by defendants’ physician upon her furnishing to the defendants a copy of the report of her examination by her own physician (Baum v. Nussenbaum, 7 A D 2d 991; Mansoor v. Simon, 5 A D 2d 845). The conditions under which defendants moved for an additional physical examination after the action had been on the calendar over two years, namely: (1) the substitution of attorneys for defendants by reason of the refusal by the insurance company, at whose instance the original physical examination was conducted, to continue the defense of this action; (2) the fact that such substitution occurred some seven months before the action was placed on the calendar; and (3) the long duration of plaintiff’s injuries, are not unusual and unanticipated within the meaning of subdivision (c) of section (9) of our present Statement of Readiness Rule. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, J J., concur.

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

It was improper to condition receipt by the plaintiff of a copy of the report of her physical examination by defendants’ physician upon her furnishing to the defendants a copy of the report of her examination by her own physician (Baum v. Nussenbaum, 7 A D 2d 991; Mansoor v. Simon, 5 A D 2d 845). The conditions under which defendants moved for an additional physical examination after the action had been on the calendar over two years, namely: (1) the substitution of attorneys for defendants by reason of the refusal by the insurance company, at whose instance the original physical examination was conducted, to continue the defense of this action; (2) the fact that such substitution occurred some seven months before the action was placed on the calendar; and (3) the long duration of plaintiff’s injuries, are not unusual and unanticipated within the meaning of subdivision (c) of section (9) of our present Statement of Readiness Rule. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, J J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 785, 224 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maus-v-nisbet-nyappdiv-1962.