Tedesco v. Murawski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tedesco v. Murawski

212 A.D.2d 1053, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1949

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1995·Published

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

—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.

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).

Pincite

212 A.D.2d 1053 (Tedesco v. Murawski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related