Legal Opinion

Horowitz v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided May 4, 1939PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLivingston, J.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, a motion has been made by defendant, pursuant to the provisions of section 306 of the Civil Practice Act, for the physical examination of one of the plaintiffs. Defendant asserts a right to have the court direct the examining physician to deliver to it, but not to plaintiff, a copy of the report. Plaintiff claims an equal right to a copy. There appears to be some confusion on this subject.

The admonition that “ While adhering strictly to the fundamental and unchanging rights of security of person and property, we must dictate our…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Matter of DaviesNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. Lyon v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Goldenberg v. ZirinskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  4. Hayt v. Brewster, Gordon & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  5. Mizak v. Carborundum Co.New York Supreme Court · 1912

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Del Ra v. VaughanNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Callan v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Swiatlowski v. KasprzykNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Di Salvo v. Di GiacomoNew York Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API