Opinion
06-23-2016
Maria ALVAREZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Salvatore FEOLA, Defendant–Appellant.
Katz & Associates, Brooklyn (Anthony M. Grisanti of counsel), for appellant. Shapiro Law Offices, PLLC, Bronx (Ernest Buonocore of counsel), for respondent.
Katz & Associates, Brooklyn (Anthony M. Grisanti of counsel), for appellant.
Shapiro Law Offices, PLLC, Bronx (Ernest Buonocore of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered May 18, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to strike the note of issue to permit him to undertake a medical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries to both shoulders when she slipped and fell on the sidewalk abutting defendant's premises. Following plaintiff's disclosure that she had arthroscopic surgery on both shoulders, defendant waived his right to a medical examination since he “willfully refused or simply failed to avail [himself] of the opportunity” to conduct plaintiff's medical examination within the deadlines set forth in the preliminary and compliance conference orders (Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. v. Bergos, 18 A.D.3d 218, 218, 794 N.Y.S.2d 341 [1st Dept.2005] ; see Colon v. Yen Ru Jin, 45 A.D.3d 359, 845 N.Y.S.2d 281 [1st Dept.2007] ).
After plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars alleging another right shoulder surgery and filed a note of issue, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to the extent he sought to compel plaintiff to appear for a medical examination. Defendant offered no reasonable explanation for his failure to notice an examination within the time frames set by the court's orders, and plaintiff alleged only new treatment, not any new injuries (see Brown v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 256 A.D.2d 17, 681 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept.1998] ; Vargas v. City of New York, 4 A.D.3d 524, 525, 772 N.Y.S.2d 381 [2d Dept.2004] ). Notably, defendant was provided an authorization to obtain the relevant medical records and the court granted a further deposition of plaintiff concerning the period between the two right shoulder surgeries, which provides reasonable disclosure concerning the additional treatment.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ., concur.