Rodriguez v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Scully

120 A.D.2d 738, 503 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56863

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

DecidedMay 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 738 (Rodriguez v. Scully) 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

Rodriguez v. Scully, 120 A.D.2d 738, 503 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to allow the petitioner to be examined by a neurologist, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 18, 1985, which granted a motion by the respondents to dismiss the proceeding.

Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, motion denied and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. The respondents’ time to serve their answer is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

There was no basis for granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss this proceeding based upon an objection in point of law. The petitioner has raised a valid factual question as to whether there is a need for him to be examined by a neurologist. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to allow the petitioner to be examined by a neurologist, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 18, 1985, which granted a motion by the respondents to dismiss the proceeding.

Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, motion denied and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. The respondents’ time to serve their answer is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

There was no basis for granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss this proceeding based upon an objection in point of law. The petitioner has raised a valid factual question as to whether there is a need for him to be examined by a neurologist. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 738, 503 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-scully-nyappdiv-1986.