Opinion
November 16, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
As to those portions of appellant's motions seeking to compel blood and urine tests and the examination of plaintiff by an ophthalmologist, no showing was made that the condition for which such tests are sought is in issue (see, Koump v Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 300), or that any further examinations are necessary (see, Korolyk v Blagman, 89 A.D.2d 578). This Court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the IAS Court in supervising disclosure (Oppenheimer v Shubitowski, 92 A.D.2d 1021, 1022). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.