From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leugemors v. Slawinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1998
255 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 13, 1998

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Discovery.

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to submit to a physical examination. Plaintiff asserted that defendants had waived their right to a physical examination by failing to conduct an examination within the time period set forth in plaintiff's "Notice Fixing Time for Physical Examination" (notice) ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.17 [a]). The court had the discretion to grant the motion to compel a physical examination if "there is a good excuse for the delay and no prejudice to the plaintiff' ( Resnick v. Seher, 198 A.D.2d 218; see, CPLR 2004; Williams v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 147 A.D.2d 558, 559; 22 NYCRR 202.17 [j]). Because a note of issue and certificate of readiness had not yet been filed, defendants did not need to establish unusual or unanticipated circumstances ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; cf., Mayo v. Lincoln Triangle Assocs., 248 A.D.2d 362; Urena v. Bruprat Realty Corp., 179 A.D.2d 505).

Defendants contend that plaintiff's notice was not served on defendants' attorneys of record, and plaintiff failed to establish that it was. In any event, defendants requested permission to conduct an examination only 17 days after expiration of the deadline in the notice, and discovery had not yet been completed. In fact, plaintiff had scheduled a deposition of a defense witness on a date three months after the date on which he denied defendants' request for the extension. Defendants twice requested permission to conduct a physical examination before moving to compel. Under the circumstances, plaintiff is not prejudiced by the brief delay ( see, Resnick v. Seher, supra).


Summaries of

Leugemors v. Slawinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1998
255 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Leugemors v. Slawinski

Case Details

Full title:ROGER LEUGEMORS, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SLAWINSKI et al., Individually and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 13, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 390

Citing Cases

Young v. Tops Markets, Inc

Contrary to the contention of defendants, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion…

Whitley v. Tsegay

In fact, having the examination will serve the interests of justice. Also, the Plaintiff would be prejudiced…