Noteboom v. Shugrue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noteboom v. Shugrue

306 A.D.2d 453, 761 N.Y.S.2d 527

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 453 (Noteboom v. Shugrue) 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

Noteboom v. Shugrue, 306 A.D.2d 453, 761 N.Y.S.2d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated December 6, 2002, which denied his motion for a protective order to vacate the defendant’s notice designating a certain doctor to conduct an independent medical examination of the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.17 (a), to vacate the defendant’s notice of independent medical examination of the plaintiff. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the record did not establish the designated physician’s alleged bias against him or his counsel (but see Pettway v Ogbonna, 261 AD2d 700 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated December 6, 2002, which denied his motion for a protective order to vacate the defendant’s notice designating a certain doctor to conduct an independent medical examination of the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.17 (a), to vacate the defendant’s notice of independent medical examination of the plaintiff. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the record did not establish the designated physician’s alleged bias against him or his counsel (but see Pettway v Ogbonna, 261 AD2d 700 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 453, 761 N.Y.S.2d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noteboom-v-shugrue-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack