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.
Harry DIVIESTI, et al., Appellants, v. Peter SUDDS, et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated February 6, 1997, which directed the injured plaintiff to be examined by the defendants' vocational rehabilitation expert, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated April 16, 1997, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated February 6, 1997, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 16, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated April 16, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The instant action was commenced by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries which the injured plaintiff allegedly suffered when his car was struck in the rear by the defendants' vehicle. At a pretrial conference, the plaintiffs served notice that they intended to use a vocational rehabilitation expert at trial to bolster their claim of lost earnings. The Supreme Court thereafter directed the injured plaintiff to be examined by the defendants' own vocational rehabilitation expert.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly held that a “personal evaluation” of the injured plaintiff by the defendants' expert in the field of vocational rehabilitation would yield information which, under CPLR 3101(a), is “material and necessary” to the defense of the action (see also, Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 245 A.D.2d 341, 666 N.Y.S.2d 26; Burger v. Bladt, 112 A.D.2d 127, 490 N.Y.S.2d 823; LaBossiere v. Hudson, 187 A.D.2d 411, 589 N.Y.S.2d 562). Further, the “plaintiffs have not alleged that they will be prejudiced by the examination, nor have they given any reason sufficient to support the denial of the relief sought” (see, LaBossiere v. Hudson, supra, at 412, 589 N.Y.S.2d 562).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: April 27, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)