Rembert v. Lipshutz

86 A.D.2d 750, 447 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15316
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 750 (Rembert v. Lipshutz) 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
Rembert v. Lipshutz, 86 A.D.2d 750, 447 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order of protection preventing him from examining the infant plaintiff (now six years old) before trial or obtaining disclosure of the name and address of her natural father. Examination before trial of plaintiff mother has been scheduled. The action seeks damages for personal and psychiatric injuries sustained by the infant as a result of defendant’s acts of sexual abuse. Defendant has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of oral sodomy and by his answer to the complaint admits that act. The case is thus one for the assessment of damages and defendant seeks to discover the infant plaintiff’s home environment and her prior psychiatric and medical history insofar as they relate to that issue. These are proper subjects for inquiry but until defendant has determined whether paternity has been established or acknowledged, he is not entitled to the name of the alleged natural father or his address. Nor is he entitled to depose the infant until he has exhausted other available sources of information concerning her home environment and prior medical condition and then not before a Judge is satisfied that he has done so, the Judge has examined the infant preliminarily and determined that she is competent to testify, and if so whether examination should be in the presence of a Judge. Those proceedings, if promptly pursued, may properly require a stay of the trial but that is a matter to be addressed to the trial court, and the previous stay of this court pending argument of the appeal is vacated. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — protective order.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

Almy v. Pappas
134 A.D.2d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Muscoreil v. Pool Mart, Inc.
107 A.D.2d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Rembert v. Lipshutz
87 A.D.2d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A.D.2d 750, 447 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rembert-v-lipshutz-nyappdiv-1982.