Skizim v. Skizim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skizim v. Skizim

188 A.D.2d 1065, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14943

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1065 (Skizim v. Skizim) 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

Skizim v. Skizim, 188 A.D.2d 1065, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memo-

randum: The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to submit to a medical examination, even though plaintiff had previously filed a certificate of readiness. "[U]nusual or unanticipated circumstances developed] subsequent to the filing of [the] note of issue and certificate of readiness” (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.21 [d]), inasmuch as, after the certificate of readiness was filed, defendant belatedly disclosed that she would be presenting medical testimony indicating that medical problems prevented her from working full time. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — Discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memo-

randum: The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to submit to a medical examination, even though plaintiff had previously filed a certificate of readiness. "[U]nusual or unanticipated circumstances developed] subsequent to the filing of [the] note of issue and certificate of readiness” (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.21 [d]), inasmuch as, after the certificate of readiness was filed, defendant belatedly disclosed that she would be presenting medical testimony indicating that medical problems prevented her from working full time. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — Discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 1065, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skizim-v-skizim-nyappdiv-1992.