Legal Opinion
Michalak v. Venticinque
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 22, 1995PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for a protective order precluding the deposition of Dr. Bartz (see, CPLR 3103). "[A] defendant in a personal injury action may [not], as of right, depose any and all physicians who are shown to have treated the injuries claimed by the plaintiff” (Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333, 334). Further, a party seeking discovery from a non-party expert witness must show "special circumstances” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]). Allegations *1061that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cirale v. 80 Pine Street Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Dioguardi v. St. John's Riverside HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- King v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3Cited by3 opinions
- Anderson v. KamalianAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Patterson v. St. Francis Center at Knolls, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Mikinberg v. BronstherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998