Parsons v. Hytech Tool & Die, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parsons v. Hytech Tool & Die, Inc.

227 A.D.2d 896, 643 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6787

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

DecidedMay 31, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 896 (Parsons v. Hytech Tool & Die, Inc.) 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

Parsons v. Hytech Tool & Die, Inc., 227 A.D.2d 896, 643 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs motion for a protective order preventing defendant’s expert from conducting a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff. Plaintiff demonstrated, as a matter of law, that defendant’s expert was objectionable {see, 22 NYCRR 202.17 [a]; Hagmeier v Consolidated Rail Corp., 154 AD2d 893; Casali v Phillips, 145 AD2d 941, 942; Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 AD2d 292, 295; cf., Turn-bull v Moulton, 72 Mise 2d 293, 295). The court abused its discretion, however, in denying defendant the opportunity to have a different expert conduct a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff. Thus, we modify the order accordingly. (Ap[897]*897peal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.— Protective Order.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs motion for a protective order preventing defendant’s expert from conducting a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff. Plaintiff demonstrated, as a matter of law, that defendant’s expert was objectionable {see, 22 NYCRR 202.17 [a]; Hagmeier v Consolidated Rail Corp., 154 AD2d 893; Casali v Phillips, 145 AD2d 941, 942; Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 AD2d 292, 295; cf., Turn-bull v Moulton, 72 Mise 2d 293, 295). The court abused its discretion, however, in denying defendant the opportunity to have a different expert conduct a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff. Thus, we modify the order accordingly. (Ap[897]*897peal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.— Protective Order.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 896, 643 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-hytech-tool-die-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack