In McNeil v State, 8 Misc 3d 1028(A) (Court of Claims 2005), the Court distinguished Mosel and Campbell on their facts and denied an application to videotape an examination, observing that "special circumstances" must be present "as the examination room is not to be turned into the hearing room."
Summary of this case from Sommer v. PierreAugust 9, 2005.
Diselosure — Medical Records and Reports — Presence of Party's Attorney and Expert at Independent Medical Examination.
In McNeil v State, 8 Misc 3d 1028(A) (Court of Claims 2005), the Court distinguished Mosel and Campbell on their facts and denied an application to videotape an examination, observing that "special circumstances" must be present "as the examination room is not to be turned into the hearing room."
Summary of this case from Sommer v. PierreFull title:McNeil v. State of New York
Court:Court of Claims
Date published: Aug 9, 2005
PCI opposes the motion on similar grounds noting that plaintiff was able to provide ten hours of unaided…
Sommer v. PierreSimilarly, the Court in Matter of Campbell, 177 Misc 2d 59 (Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1998), relying on Mosel,…