Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
A.W. and D.W., Infants, by their Parent and Natural Guardian, Malissa Ward, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, et al., Defendants, Bowpas Properties, Inc., and James G. Mogle, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiffs, by their mother, commenced this action to recover damages for injuries they allegedly sustained as a result of their exposure to lead paint. Following a conference with Supreme Court, the court ordered that the neuropsychological examinations of plaintiffs sought by Bowpas Properties, Inc. (Bowpas) and James G. Mogle (collectively, defendants) by their experts were to be completed and the reports provided to plaintiffs' attorney within 90 days of the date on which the order was signed. The court granted defendants' motions seeking a protective order precluding plaintiffs from having a “third-party observer,” including plaintiffs' attorney or other representative, “physically, electronically or otherwise present” during the examinations of plaintiff brother and granted Mogle's motion for that relief with respect to plaintiff sister. A party is “entitled to be examined in the presence of [his or] her attorney or other ․ representative ․ so long as [that person does] not interfere with the conduct of the examinations” (Ponce v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 100 A.D.2d 963, 964, 475 N.Y.S.2d 102), “unless [the] defendant makes a positive showing of necessity for the exclusion of” such an individual (Parsons v. Hytech Tool & Die, 241 A.D.2d 936, 936, 661 N.Y.S.2d 362; see Ramsey v. New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 14 A.D.3d 349, 350, 789 N.Y.S.2d 104). The defendant must establish that the presence of the attorney or other representative will “ impair the validity and effectiveness of the particular examination” that is to be conducted (Matter of Alexander L., 60 N.Y.2d 329, 332, 469 N.Y.S.2d 626, 457 N.E.2d 731). Here, defendants failed to make that showing with respect to the neuropsychological examinations to be conducted, and thus the court erred in granting those parts of defendants' respective motions concerning the presence of plaintiffs' attorney or other representative. We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to define the parameters of the physical, electronic or other presence of plaintiffs' attorney or such other representative as the court may approve, in order to minimize that person's impairment of “the validity and effectiveness of the [neuropsychological] examinations” (id.).
We also agree with plaintiffs that the court abused its discretion in denying that part of their cross motion seeking leave to amend the complaint “by permitting language alleging the piercing of the corporate veil” of Bowpas, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. “Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit” (Letterman v. Reddington, 278 A.D.2d 868, 868, 718 N.Y.S.2d 503; see CPLR 3025[b]; Nastasi v. Span, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 1011, 1013, 778 N.Y.S.2d 795; Nizam v. Friol, 294 A.D.2d 901, 902, 741 N.Y.S.2d 805), and “[t]he decision to allow or disallow the amendment is committed to the court's discretion” (Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164; see Fingerlakes Chiropractic v. Maggio, 269 A.D.2d 790, 791, 703 N.Y.S.2d 632). Here, defendants failed to establish any prejudice arising from the proposed amendment, and we note in particular that discovery has not been completed (cf. Heller v. Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 20, 23-24, 756 N.Y.S.2d 26). In addition, the evidence submitted by plaintiffs in support of the cross motion establishes that the proposed amendment is not patently lacking in merit (see generally Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141-142, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157; Austin Powder Co. v. McCullough, 216 A.D.2d 825, 826-827, 628 N.Y.S.2d 855).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motions in part and providing that plaintiffs are precluded from having a third-party observer other than their attorney or other representative approved by Supreme Court physically, electronically or otherwise present during their neuropsychological examinations and by granting that part of the cross motion seeking leave to amend the complaint upon condition that plaintiffs shall serve the proposed amended complaint within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Oneida County, for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 17, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)