From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gaffney v. Salenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1972
40 A.D.2d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Opinion

November 20, 1972


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff and medical expenses, etc., incurred by her mother, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 8, 1971, which denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate plaintiffs' statement of readiness and directed that the statement of readiness remain on file and that the case remain on the trial calendar. Order modified by adding thereto a provision granting defendants a physical examination of the infant plaintiff, upon 10 days' written notice by defendants. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. This modification is made on condition that defendants pay plaintiff said $10 costs and disbursements plus an additional amount of $250 costs. In the interests of justice, we hold that defendants should now have a physical examination of the infant plaintiff. However, because the lack of such physical examination was caused solely by defendants' neglect to comply with section 672.1 of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 672.1) when heretofore served with plaintiffs' notice of availability for physical examination ( Delgado v. Fogle, 32 A.D.2d 85), we condition the modification herein on the payment of the costs above mentioned. Rabin, P.J., Munder, Latham, Shapiro and Christ, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gaffney v. Salenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1972
40 A.D.2d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
Case details for

Gaffney v. Salenger

Case Details

Full title:CHARLEAN E. GAFFNEY, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian…

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1972

Citations

40 A.D.2d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Schussheim v. Beam's Drug Corp.

While it appears that Mrs. Schussheim was willing to submit to a physical examination at her attorneys'…

Marotta v. Rood

No prejudice to plaintiff has been shown. However, because defendants' failure to conduct an examination…