Mooney v. Osowiecky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mooney v. Osowiecky

215 A.D.2d 839, 626 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789

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

DecidedMay 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 839 (Mooney v. Osowiecky) 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

Mooney v. Osowiecky, 215 A.D.2d 839, 626 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered October 24, 1994 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff Kimberly M. Mooney to submit to an examination by a vocational rehabilitation expert.

Because we agree with the position of the First Department, as initially enunciated in D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (182 AD2d 462), that courts have no statutory authority to compel the examination of an adverse party by a nonphysician vocational rehabilitation specialist (see, Savarese v Yonkers Motors Corp., 205 AD2d 463; Peterson v Zuercher, 198 AD2d 797 [4th Dept]; cf., Johnson v Moran Towing & Transp. Co., 194 AD2d 445; but see, Gomez v Long Is. R. R., 202 AD2d 633), we are constrained to reverse Supreme Court’s order. Defendants’ arguments concerning the advisability of [840]*840authorizing such discovery are best directed to the Legislature.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.

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

Mercure, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered October 24, 1994 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff Kimberly M. Mooney to submit to an examination by a vocational rehabilitation expert.

Because we agree with the position of the First Department, as initially enunciated in D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (182 AD2d 462), that courts have no statutory authority to compel the examination of an adverse party by a nonphysician vocational rehabilitation specialist (see, Savarese v Yonkers Motors Corp., 205 AD2d 463; Peterson v Zuercher, 198 AD2d 797 [4th Dept]; cf., Johnson v Moran Towing & Transp. Co., 194 AD2d 445; but see, Gomez v Long Is. R. R., 202 AD2d 633), we are constrained to reverse Supreme Court’s order. Defendants’ arguments concerning the advisability of [840]*840authorizing such discovery are best directed to the Legislature.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 839, 626 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mooney-v-osowiecky-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack