May v. American Red Cross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

May v. American Red Cross

282 A.D.2d 285, 722 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3647

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

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 285 (May v. American Red Cross) 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

May v. American Red Cross, 282 A.D.2d 285, 722 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered July 17, 2000, which, upon denying defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue, insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff to submit to a physical examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant waived its right to physically examine plaintiff by failing to comply with the deadlines set in three prior orders, we decline to disturb the motion court’s exercise of discretion where the action will remain on the calendar and it does not otherwise appear that the requested physical examination will prejudice plaintiff (see, Urena v Bruprat Realty Corp., 179 AD2d 505; Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 AD2d 376). Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered July 17, 2000, which, upon denying defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue, insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff to submit to a physical examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant waived its right to physically examine plaintiff by failing to comply with the deadlines set in three prior orders, we decline to disturb the motion court’s exercise of discretion where the action will remain on the calendar and it does not otherwise appear that the requested physical examination will prejudice plaintiff (see, Urena v Bruprat Realty Corp., 179 AD2d 505; Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 AD2d 376). Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 285, 722 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-american-red-cross-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack