Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Tedesco v. Murawski

Tedesco v. Murawski

212 A.D.2d 1053, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 1995
StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 1053 (Tedesco v. Murawski) 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
Tedesco v. Murawski, 212 A.D.2d 1053, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In the absence of "special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out in factual detail”, Supreme Court should not have permitted a physical examination of plaintiff after the note of issue and statement of readiness had been filed (Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961; see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Siegel, NY Prac §370 [2d ed]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Laudico v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
125 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D.2d 1053, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tedesco-v-murawski-nyappdiv-1995.