Spierer v. Bloomingdale's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spierer v. Bloomingdale's

37 A.D.3d 371, 830 N.Y.S.2d 148

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 371 (Spierer v. Bloomingdale's) 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

Spierer v. Bloomingdale's, 37 A.D.3d 371, 830 N.Y.S.2d 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and directed them to undergo forensic psychiatric examinations by defendants’ expert, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, who alleged that they suffered from “multiple chemical sensitivities,” placed their mental conditions in controversy (CPLR 3121 [a]) by asserting in their bills of particulars that they suffered from such mental disturbances as “severe anxiety” and “acute fear of the carc[i]nogenic nature and permanent effects of the chemicals in question” (see Syron v Paolelli, 238 AD2d 710 [1997]; St. Clare v Cattani, 128 AD2d 766 [1987]), and by submitting to an examination by a psychologist to whom their treating physician had referred them (see TOA Constr. Co. v Tsitsires, 4 AD3d 141, 142 [2004]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and directed them to undergo forensic psychiatric examinations by defendants’ expert, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, who alleged that they suffered from “multiple chemical sensitivities,” placed their mental conditions in controversy (CPLR 3121 [a]) by asserting in their bills of particulars that they suffered from such mental disturbances as “severe anxiety” and “acute fear of the carc[i]nogenic nature and permanent effects of the chemicals in question” (see Syron v Paolelli, 238 AD2d 710 [1997]; St. Clare v Cattani, 128 AD2d 766 [1987]), and by submitting to an examination by a psychologist to whom their treating physician had referred them (see TOA Constr. Co. v Tsitsires, 4 AD3d 141, 142 [2004]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 371, 830 N.Y.S.2d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spierer-v-bloomingdales-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack