Small v. Brodsky 42

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Small v. Brodsky 42

7 A.D.3d 366, 775 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6753

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

DecidedMay 13, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 366 (Small v. Brodsky 42) 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

Small v. Brodsky 42, 7 A.D.3d 366, 775 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2003, which directed plaintiff to appear for a physical examination within 45 days of designation of an examining physician on behalf of the defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order on appeal did not penalize plaintiff by vacating his note of issue and statement of readiness despite his inaccurate statement that a physical examination had been completed. Prior compliance orders had dealt with defendants’ willful failure to designate a physician to conduct a physical examination of plaintiff. This cannot be construed as an abuse of the court’s discretion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P, Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2003, which directed plaintiff to appear for a physical examination within 45 days of designation of an examining physician on behalf of the defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order on appeal did not penalize plaintiff by vacating his note of issue and statement of readiness despite his inaccurate statement that a physical examination had been completed. Prior compliance orders had dealt with defendants’ willful failure to designate a physician to conduct a physical examination of plaintiff. This cannot be construed as an abuse of the court’s discretion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P, Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 366, 775 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-brodsky-42-nyappdiv-2004.