Opinion
March 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On its motion to compel a vocational rehabilitation examination of the infant plaintiff by its physician, the defendant presented no evidence regarding the specific nature and scope of the requested examination and failed to describe with specificity what such an examination would entail. Moreover, the defendant neither indicated the manner in which the requested examination would differ from the physical examination which the infant plaintiff had already undergone, nor explained why the information obtained from the prior examination and from other discovery would not be adequate for use by its physician. Under these circumstances, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion by the Supreme Court in denying the motion (see generally, Pallotta v. West Bend Co., 166 A.D.2d 637; Luboff v Temple Israel, 109 A.D.2d 730; Korolyk v. Blagman, 89 A.D.2d 578). Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.