Wegman v. Wegman
| Decision Date | 19 November 1975 |
| Citation | 380 N.Y.S.2d 649,343 N.E.2d 288,37 N.Y.2d 940 |
| Parties | , 343 N.E.2d 288 Edwin WEGMAN, Respondent, v. Bernice WEGMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Jerome R. Halperin, P.C., New York City, for appellant.
Joel R. Brandes and Lester Wallman, New York City, for respondent.
Since the defendant alleged in her counterclaim 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.
Order, 46 A.D.2d 908, 362 N.Y.S.2d 202, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenblitt v. Rosenblitt
...physical or mental examination by a designated physician. CPLR 3121 is applicable in matrimonial actions (see Wegman v. Wegman, 37 N.Y.2d 940, 941, 380 N.Y.S.2d 649, 343 N.E.2d 288). Recognizing the potential for abuse in such cases, the Court of Appeals in Wegman v. Wegman, supra, p. 941, ......
-
S.R.E.B. v. E.K.E.B.
...annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts" (Wegman v. Wegman, 37 N.Y. 940, 941, 380 N.Y.S.2d 649 [1975], quoting CPLR 3103 ). The historical case law states, "thus in matrimonial actions experience has shown that the pretrial examination......
-
Crocker C. v. Anne R.
...unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts" (Wegman v. Wegman, 37 N.Y. 940, 941, 380 N.Y.S.2d 649 [1975], quoting CPLR 3103 ; see also generally Garvin v. Garvin, 162 A.D.2d 497, 556 N.Y.S.2d 699 [2 Dept.,1990] ). As such, th......
-
Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc.
...to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice ( see CPLR 3103[a]; Wegman v. Wegman, 37 N.Y.2d 940, 380 N.Y.S.2d 649, 343 N.E.2d 288; Byck v. Byck, 294 A.D.2d 456, 743 N.Y.S.2d 126; Eber Bros. Wine & Liq. Corp. v. Ribowsky, 266 A.D.2d 499, 698 N.Y......