Peterson v. Zuercher
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and new trial granted on the issue of future lost wages only in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff Mark D. Peterson (plaintiff) to submit to a physical examination by a vocational rehabilitation specialist. That motion was made after the note of issue and statement of readiness had been filed, and defendants failed to demonstrate special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances warranting further discovery (see, Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- DiMichel v. South Buffalo Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Peterson v. ZuercherNew York Supreme Court · 1992
- Gould v. MaroneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Stern v. CalzadoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- D'Amico v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Caruso v. Russell P. LeFrois Builders, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Reed v. Harter Chair Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Krajewski v. RosinskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Remillard v. Louis Williams, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Trosty v. Mendon Leasing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.