Remigio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Remigio v. City of New York

12 A.D.3d 334, 786 N.Y.S.2d 16, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 334 (Remigio v. City of New York) 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

Remigio v. City of New York, 12 A.D.3d 334, 786 N.Y.S.2d 16, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J), entered April 18, 2003, which, upon granting plaintiffs’ motion for permission to serve new medical and liability expert notices, granted defendant City’s motion to conduct an independent medical examination of the infant plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting defendant to conduct an independent medical examination of the infant plaintiff even though defendant did not move to vacate the note of issue within 20 days after its service pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (e). The temporary unavailability of one of plaintiffs’ witnesses and the permanent unavailability of another constituted a reasonable excuse for permitting plaintiffs to serve new liability and expert notices during trial and, in [335]*335turn, for permitting defendant City the requested discovery. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J), entered April 18, 2003, which, upon granting plaintiffs’ motion for permission to serve new medical and liability expert notices, granted defendant City’s motion to conduct an independent medical examination of the infant plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting defendant to conduct an independent medical examination of the infant plaintiff even though defendant did not move to vacate the note of issue within 20 days after its service pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (e). The temporary unavailability of one of plaintiffs’ witnesses and the permanent unavailability of another constituted a reasonable excuse for permitting plaintiffs to serve new liability and expert notices during trial and, in [335]*335turn, for permitting defendant City the requested discovery. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 334, 786 N.Y.S.2d 16, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remigio-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.