Rizzo v. DeSimone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rizzo v. DeSimone

287 A.D.2d 609, 731 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 609 (Rizzo v. DeSimone) 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

Rizzo v. DeSimone, 287 A.D.2d 609, 731 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated December 7, 2000, which granted the defendants’ separate motions to strike the action from the trial calendar to the extent that the plaintiff was directed to submit to an independent medical examination by doctors designated by the defendants within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants’ motions were not untimely as a matter of law (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]; CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; Levy v Schaefer, 160 AD2d 1182). [610]*610Since the defendants’ motions were timely, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the plaintiffs examination, as the defendants were only required to demonstrate that the action was not ready for trial (see, Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated December 7, 2000, which granted the defendants’ separate motions to strike the action from the trial calendar to the extent that the plaintiff was directed to submit to an independent medical examination by doctors designated by the defendants within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants’ motions were not untimely as a matter of law (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]; CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; Levy v Schaefer, 160 AD2d 1182). [610]*610Since the defendants’ motions were timely, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the plaintiffs examination, as the defendants were only required to demonstrate that the action was not ready for trial (see, Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 609, 731 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzo-v-desimone-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack