Quaglia v. 69th Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quaglia v. 69th Tenants Corp.

200 A.D.2d 436, 607 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 436 (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., 200 A.D.2d 436, 607 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motions to strike the action from the calendar, and directed plaintiff to submit to a physical examination and provide medical reports within 120 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff’s certificate of readiness erroneously stated that discovery proceedings had been completed, plaintiff not having submitted to a physical examination by an internist designated by defendants, plaintiff had an acceptable excuse for not having done so (see, Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176, 178), namely, defendant Werner’s refusal to schedule the examination unless plaintiff first provided blood and urine samples. This latter request, which was the subject of a separate appeal, was improper (198 AD2d 108). Nor is the order ambiguous insofar as it directs defendants to exchange "documentary evidence”, such directive being inclusive of defendant Werner’s demand for a bill of particulars from other defendants and a third-party defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, 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 June 24, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motions to strike the action from the calendar, and directed plaintiff to submit to a physical examination and provide medical reports within 120 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff’s certificate of readiness erroneously stated that discovery proceedings had been completed, plaintiff not having submitted to a physical examination by an internist designated by defendants, plaintiff had an acceptable excuse for not having done so (see, Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176, 178), namely, defendant Werner’s refusal to schedule the examination unless plaintiff first provided blood and urine samples. This latter request, which was the subject of a separate appeal, was improper (198 AD2d 108). Nor is the order ambiguous insofar as it directs defendants to exchange "documentary evidence”, such directive being inclusive of defendant Werner’s demand for a bill of particulars from other defendants and a third-party defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 436, 607 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quaglia-v-69th-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack