From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Kalow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the neuropsychological examination of Bridget Young shall continue at such time and place as shall be fixed in a written notice by the appellant of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree.

Bridget Young allegedly suffered extensive neuropsychological injuries resulting from an automobile accident. While the appellant's examining neuropsychologist had an opportunity to examine Young on two separate days, he was unable to complete his examination because Young had arrived late for the examinations. In addition, the appellant's neuropsychologist indicated that the results of his first examination were rendered meaningless by Young's condition that day. When he attempted to readminister certain tests during the second examination, he was prevented from doing so by the plaintiffs' counsel. Moreover, he indicated that he was not given the results of Young's prior neuropsychological examinations conducted by the plaintiffs' treating physician. Based on the foregoing, the appellant's neuropsychologist indicated that he could not completely and accurately evaluate Young's condition.

The principle underlying the physical or mental examinations provided for in CPLR 3121 is to attempt to narrow down the areas of medical dispute and ultimately eliminate the controversy surrounding the medical issues in personal injury cases (see, Lapera v Shafron, 159 A.D.2d 614). There is no restriction in CPLR 3121 limiting the number of examinations to which a party may be subjected, and a subsequent examination is permissible where the party seeking the examination demonstrates the necessity for it (see, Radigan v Radigan, 115 A.D.2d 466). Based on the record before us, we conclude that the appellant has demonstrated the necessity for continued neuropsychological examination of Young. Thus, we substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court and grant the appellant's motion (see, Burger v Bladt, 112 A.D.2d 127; Carden v Callocchio, 100 A.D.2d 608). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Young v. Kalow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Young v. Kalow

Case Details

Full title:BRIDGET YOUNG et al., Respondents, v. HENRY KALOW et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 231

Citing Cases

Luxenberg v. Jericho Assocs

Notably, that case involved claims of psychological or neurological injuries for which the defendant's…

Vargas v. City of N.Y.

"While there is no restriction in CPLR 3121(a) limiting the number of medical examinations to which a…