Legal Opinion

Smith v. Manning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 13, 2000PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of the motion of defendant Boulevard Produce, Inc. seeking to compel Paula R. Smith (plaintiff) to submit to an examination by a nonphysician vocational rehabilitation specialist. Although CPLR 3121 (a) authorizes physical or mental examinations by a designated physician, that statute “does not limit the scope of general discovery available, subject to the discretion of the trial court, under CPLR 3101,” and the directives in CPLR 3121 (a) concerning the procedures for obtaining such examinations…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hoenig v. WestphalNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1998

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Haniff v. Superior Court of Santa Clara CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  2. Freni v. Eastbridge Landing Associates LPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  3. McDowell v. Eagle Trans. Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  4. Hayes v. Bette & Cring, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
  5. Scotto v. M.D. Carlisle Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

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

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

Powered by the Exa API