McGee v. Family Care Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGee v. Family Care Services

246 A.D.2d 308, 666 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 6, 1998·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered December 5, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs note of issue and certificate of readiness, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was based on plaintiffs failure to disclose experts who would testify for him at trial. In opposition, plaintiff supplied an expert designation, which defendant’s reply argued was inadequate under CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i). The motion court, noting that plaintiffs designated expert was also his treating physician, held that defendant had sufficient notice of this witness’s projected testimony by reason of having been given his report and records. We agree with that assessment, and would add that the motion could have been denied because disclosure with respect to treating physicians is governed by CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17, not CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (see, Rook v 60 Key Centre, 239 AD2d 926). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered December 5, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs note of issue and certificate of readiness, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was based on plaintiffs failure to disclose experts who would testify for him at trial. In opposition, plaintiff supplied an expert designation, which defendant’s reply argued was inadequate under CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i). The motion court, noting that plaintiffs designated expert was also his treating physician, held that defendant had sufficient notice of this witness’s projected testimony by reason of having been given his report and records. We agree with that assessment, and would add that the motion could have been denied because disclosure with respect to treating physicians is governed by CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17, not CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (see, Rook v 60 Key Centre, 239 AD2d 926). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

McGee v. Family Care Services, 246 A.D.2d 308, 666 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

246 A.D.2d 308 (McGee v. Family Care Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related