Opinion
January 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
Although plaintiff's certificate of readiness erroneously stated that discovery proceedings had been completed, plaintiff not having submitted to a physical examination by an internist designated by defendants, plaintiff had an acceptable excuse for not having done so (see, Savino v. Lewittes, 160 A.D.2d 176, 178), namely, defendant Werner's refusal to schedule the examination unless plaintiff first provided blood and urine samples. This latter request, which was the subject of a separate appeal, was improper ( 198 A.D.2d 108). Nor is the order ambiguous insofar as it directs defendants to exchange "documentary evidence", such directive being inclusive of defendant Werner's demand for a bill of particulars from other defendants and a third-party defendant.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.