From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzgerald v. Avidon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 1995
222 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 21, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.).


Under the circumstances presented here, where plaintiff has never been physically examined, and where the case remains on the trial calendar for an assessment of damages, it was a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the court to have directed a physical examination of plaintiff, even though more than 20 days had elapsed from the filing of plaintiff's note of issue and certificate of readiness (see, Dominguez v Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 A.D.2d 376). We also note that plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars alleging an additional serious injury.

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Fitzgerald v. Avidon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 1995
222 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Fitzgerald v. Avidon

Case Details

Full title:KATHLEEN FITZGERALD, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. LOUISE AVIDON…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
636 N.Y.S.2d 620

Citing Cases

Glover v. New York City Transit Authority

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in…

Blamer v. Singh

Although the defendant's failure to move to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness within 20…