From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MATOS v. MIRA REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 1997
240 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 3, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).


Summary denial of the motion is mandated as it was made without any affirmation of good faith as required by 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a) ( Vasquez v. G.A.P.L. W. Realty, 236 A.D.2d 311). In any event, defendant fails to justify its noncompliance with the requirement of the preliminary conference order that its physical examination of plaintiff have been conducted within 45 days of plaintiff's deposition. No showing is made that the medical matters that first came up at the deposition are so related to the injuries at issue herein that an effective physical examination could not have been conducted without the corresponding authorizations and reports and thereby justifying a delay of the examination beyond the 45-day time limit, assuming such a justification could be entertained after the time limit had already passed ( see, DiMare v. Mace Assocs., 178 A.D.2d 196).

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

MATOS v. MIRA REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 1997
240 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

MATOS v. MIRA REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP

Case Details

Full title:JOSE MATOS, Respondent, v. MIRA REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP., Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 3, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

Weisenthal v. Gotham Realty Holdings

Consistent with the aims of the CPLR, the Part Rules are intended to fosterthe just, speedy and inexpensive…

Starzyk v. Heslinga

The defendants appeal and we affirm.Contrary to the defendants' contention in the Supreme Court, their motion…