From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mooney v. Osowiecky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 4, 1995
215 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 4, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Teresi, J.).


Because we agree with the position of the First Department, as initially enunciated in D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. ( 182 A.D.2d 462), that courts have no statutory authority to compel the examination of an adverse party by a nonphysician vocational rehabilitation specialist (see, Savarese v Yonkers Motors Corp., 205 A.D.2d 463; Peterson v Zuercher, 198 A.D.2d 797 [4th Dept]; cf., Johnson v Moran Towing Transp. Co., 194 A.D.2d 445; but see, Gomez v Long Is. R.R., 202 A.D.2d 633), we are constrained to reverse Supreme Court's order. Defendants' arguments concerning the advisability of authorizing such discovery are best directed to the Legislature.

Cardona, P.J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.


Summaries of

Mooney v. Osowiecky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 4, 1995
215 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Mooney v. Osowiecky

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY M. MOONEY et al., Appellants, v. DANA J. OSOWIECKY et al.…

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

Date published: May 4, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 317

Citing Cases

Hayes v. Bette & Cring, LLC

Here, defendant sought to compel Hayes to submit to an examination before a vocational rehabilitation expert.…

Young v. Knickerbocker Arena

By order entered August 9, 1999, Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.), inter alia, denied defendants' application.…