From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosario v. BNS Buildings, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 24, 2009
67 A.D.3d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2009-03237.

November 24, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered March 27, 2009, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the plaintiff to submit to certain medical testing.

Dwyer Brennan, New York, N.Y. (Kevin J. Brennan of counsel), for appellants.

Wingate, Russotti Shapiro, LLP, Dix Hills, N.Y. (Kenneth J. Halperin and David M. Schwarz, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Covello, Santucci, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances, where, inter alia, the plaintiff established that the proposed medical testing was potentially dangerous ( cf. Lefkowitz v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 94 AD2d 18, 21), the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was to compel her to submit to the proposed testing ( see Santero v Kotwal, 4 AD3d 464, 465; Bobka v Mann, 308 AD2d 497, 498; Marino v Pena, 211 AD2d 668, 668-669).


Summaries of

Rosario v. BNS Buildings, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 24, 2009
67 A.D.3d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Rosario v. BNS Buildings, LLC

Case Details

Full title:LUZ ROSARIO, Respondent, v. BNS BUILDINGS, LLC, et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 24, 2009

Citations

67 A.D.3d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8801
888 N.Y.S.2d 754

Citing Cases

D'Adamo v. Saint Dominic's Home

When a particular discovery demand is inappropriate, the court may "make a protective order" with respect to…

D'adamo v. Home

When a particular discovery demand is inappropriate, the court may “make a protective order” with respect to…