Williams v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 23 February 1965 |
| Citation | 23 A.D.2d 590,256 N.Y.S.2d 708 |
| Parties | Inez WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and Ritchie Connoly, defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Irving A. Scheinberg, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Sidney Brandes, Brooklyn, for respondent; Abraham Satran, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, CHRIST, BRENNAN and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 4, 1964, which granted defendants' cross motion to examine plaintiff before trial. Plaintiff's initial motion to vacate defendants' notice of such examination was not expressly disposed of in the order.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; defendants' cross motion denied; and plaintiff's motion to vacate defemdants' notice of examination granted.
Defendants' notice was served subsequent to plaintiff's filing of a note of issue and statement of readiness. Defendants failed to make a motion, within 20 days after such filing, to strike the action from the calendar. Hence, under the Special Rules of this court (Part 7, rules III and VII), defendants are deemed to have waived their right to the examination now sought by them (Juett v. Paesani, 19 A.D.2d 726, 242 N.Y.S.2d 361; Byrnes v. Dan's Taxi, Inc., 18 A.D.2d 807, 236 N.Y.S.2d 471). No 'unusual or unanticipated conditions' within the meaning of said rule VII were offered to permit departure from the general rule.
BELDOCK, Presiding Justice, dissents and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum:
In view of the fact that this accidet happened on September 28, 1963; that the action was instituted on February 21, 1964; and that we are dealing with a public authority which has many cases to investigate, it is my opinion that the discretion exercised by the Special Term in granting defendants' cross-motion for plaintiff's pre-trial examination was proper. Plaintiff claims skull and vertebra fractures which are negated by hospital x-rays, but which apparently are revealed in x-rays taken by her private physician. Plaintiff refuses to permit the defendants to examine her physician's x-rays despite the fact that she executed a consent to the examination of her medical records. Defendants, in their notice to examine plaintiff, had demanded the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...Waller Construction Corp., 28 A.D.2d 982, 283 N.Y.S.2d 651; Negron v. Kaufman, 26 A.D.2d 548, 271 N.Y.S.2d 605; Williams v. N.Y. City Tr. Auth., 23 A.D.2d 590, 256 N.Y.S.2d 708), bills of particulars (Wayne E. Edwards Corp. v. Romas, 36 A.D.2d 789, 319 N.Y.S.2d 84) and answers to interrogat......
-
Bowen v. Fiore
...of the injured plaintiff (22 NYCRR 675.3; Colonel v. Mynel Transp. Corp., 23 A.D.2d 757, 258 N.Y.S.2d 593; Williams v. New York City Tr. Auth., 23 A.D.2d 590, 256 N.Y.S.2d 708; Juett v. Paesani, 19 A.D.2d 726, 242 N.Y.S.2d 361; Levy v. Wexler, 16 A.D.2d 688, 227 N.Y.S.2d 482). To allow a ph......
-
Kirk v. Blum
...case had been placed on the trial calendar (see Mazzaka v. Long Is. R. R., 54 A.D.2d 690, 387 N.Y.S.2d 278; Williams v. New York City Tr. Auth., 23 A.D.2d 590, 256 N.Y.S.2d 708; Giddens v. Moultrie, 66 A.D.2d 993, 411 N.Y.S.2d 474; Finn v. Crystal Beach Tr. Co., 55 A.D.2d 1001, 391 N.Y.S.2d ...
-
Colonel v. Mynel Transp. Corp.
...the defendant had failed to show that any unusual or unanticipated conditions had subsequently developed (Williams v. New York City Transit Auth., 23 A.D.2d 590, 256 N.Y.S.2d 708; Juett v. Paesani, 19 A.D.2d 726, 242 N.Y.S.2d 361; Byrnes v. Dan's Taxi, inc., 18 A.D.2d 807, 236 N.Y.S.2d ...