From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rizzo v. DeSimone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 10, 2001.

October 22, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated December 7, 2000, which granted the defendants' separate motions to strike the action from the trial calendar to the extent that the plaintiff was directed to submit to an independent medical examination by doctors designated by the defendants within 30 days.

Corozzo Greenberg, P.C., Howard Beach, N.Y. (Alan H. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein, Hill, Grammatico Gann, Mineola, N.Y. (Dennis S. Heffernan of counsel), for respondent Danielle DeSimone.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants' motions were not untimely as a matter of law (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21[e]; CPLR 2103[b][2]; Levy v. Schaefer, 160 A.D.2d 1182). Since the defendants' motions were timely, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the plaintiff's examination, as the defendants were only required to demonstrate that the action was not ready for trial (see, Audiovox Corp. v. Benyamini, 265 A.D.2d 135).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rizzo v. DeSimone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Rizzo v. DeSimone

Case Details

Full title:TERESITA RIZZO, appellant, v. DANIELLE DeSIMONE, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Oct 22, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 857

Citing Cases

Mosley v. Flavius

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the defendant…

Lucana v. DeRosa Builders, Inc.

Since plaintiffs moved to vacate the note of issue within the twenty-day time prescribed for doing so…