Quaglia v. 69th Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quaglia v. 69th Tenants Corp.

198 A.D.2d 108, 605 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10642

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 108 (Quaglia v. 69th Tenants Corp.) 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

Quaglia v. 69th Tenants Corp., 198 A.D.2d 108, 605 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for additional physical examinations of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order same court and Justice, entered on or about March 23, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to resettle the September 16, 1992 order, is deemed to be a denial of a motion to renew such order, and, so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As to those portions of appellant’s motions seeking to compel blood and urine tests and the examination of plaintiff by an ophthalmologist, no showing was made that the condition for which such tests are sought is in issue (see, Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 300), or that any further examinations are necessary (see, Korolyk v Blagman, 89 AD2d 578). This Court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the IAS Court in supervising disclosure (Oppenheimer v Shubitowski, 92 AD2d 1021, 1022). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for additional physical examinations of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order same court and Justice, entered on or about March 23, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to resettle the September 16, 1992 order, is deemed to be a denial of a motion to renew such order, and, so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As to those portions of appellant’s motions seeking to compel blood and urine tests and the examination of plaintiff by an ophthalmologist, no showing was made that the condition for which such tests are sought is in issue (see, Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 300), or that any further examinations are necessary (see, Korolyk v Blagman, 89 AD2d 578). This Court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the IAS Court in supervising disclosure (Oppenheimer v Shubitowski, 92 AD2d 1021, 1022). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 108, 605 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quaglia-v-69th-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack