Proia v. Ciszewski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Proia v. Ciszewski

231 A.D.2d 871, 647 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14273

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Amended order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in precluding defendants from offering evidence of a physical examination of Linda C. Proia (plaintiff) conducted by defendants’ expert physician because the report of the examination was not provided to plaintiffs’ counsel within 45 days as required by Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.17 (c). The report was provided 14 days late, defendants established good cause for the delay, and there is no indication of any prejudice to plaintiffs. Thus, the court’s reliance upon Kelly v Tarnowski (213 AD2d 1054) was misplaced.

We modify the amended order, therefore, by vacating that portion precluding defendants from offering evidence or medical testimony from their expert physician regarding his physical examination of plaintiff. (Appeal from Amended Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

Amended order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in precluding defendants from offering evidence of a physical examination of Linda C. Proia (plaintiff) conducted by defendants’ expert physician because the report of the examination was not provided to plaintiffs’ counsel within 45 days as required by Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.17 (c). The report was provided 14 days late, defendants established good cause for the delay, and there is no indication of any prejudice to plaintiffs. Thus, the court’s reliance upon Kelly v Tarnowski (213 AD2d 1054) was misplaced.

We modify the amended order, therefore, by vacating that portion precluding defendants from offering evidence or medical testimony from their expert physician regarding his physical examination of plaintiff. (Appeal from Amended Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Proia v. Ciszewski, 231 A.D.2d 871, 647 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

231 A.D.2d 871 (Proia v. Ciszewski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related