From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mertz v. Bradford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

July 12, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendants' motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting the presence of either a medical representative or a stenographer at physical examinations to be conducted by doctors designated for that purpose by defendants. We repeat that the examining room should not "`be turned into a hearing room with lawyers and stenographers from both sides participating'" (Casali v Phillips, 145 A.D.2d 941, 942, quoting Jakubowski v Lengen, 86 A.D.2d 398, 401). We also repeat that "where valid reasons exist, a party may object to the physician designated by defendant and seek to have defendant select another doctor to conduct the examination" (Casali v Phillips, supra, at 942; see also, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 A.D.2d 292, 295).

Finally, we note that while plaintiffs purport to appeal from an order denying their motion to permit the presence of their attorney at the physical examinations, no such order appears in the record. The attorney may attend (see, Jakubowski v Lengen, supra).


Summaries of

Mertz v. Bradford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Mertz v. Bradford

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE J. MERTZ et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. HILARY P. BRADFORD et…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1989

Citations

152 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
543 N.Y.S.2d 786

Citing Cases

McNeil v. State

Given the clear limits on the role of the attorney at such examination ( see e.g. Allen v. State of New York,…

People v. King

The issue was not preserved for our review (cf., People v Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 831) and we decline to…