Opinion
Argued October 15, 1975
Decided November 19, 1975
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ROBERT C. MEADE, J.
Jerome R. Halperin, P.C., for appellant.
Joel R. Brandes and Lester Wallman for respondent.
MEMORANDUM. Since the defendant alleged in her counter-claim that she was suffering from certain specified ailments in addition to general poor health, her "physical condition" was "in controversy" within the meaning of CPLR 3121 and the plaintiff was entitled to request a physical examination. CPLR 3121 does not prohibit such examinations in matrimonial actions, and although we recognize the potential for abuse in these cases, the court's broad discretionary power to grant a protective order "to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts" (CPLR 3103) should provide adequate safeguards.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.