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.
Michael W. TORELLI, respondent, v. Lina TORELLI, appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mackenzie, J.), dated March 8, 2007, which denied her motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with a notice to submit to a physical examination by a physician designated by her and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order vacating the notice to submit to a physical examination.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the respondent.
“CPLR 3121(a) provides that when the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, any party may serve notice on another party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a designated physician. It is a generally accepted principle that parties to a contested custody proceeding place their physical and mental conditions in issue” (Anonymous v. Anonymous, 5 A.D.3d 516, 517, 772 N.Y.S.2d 866). Although the “broad scope of discovery permitted under the CPLR takes on particular significance in child custody disputes” (Burgel v. Burgel, 141 A.D.2d 215, 216, 533 N.Y.S.2d 735), “because the potential for abuse in matrimonial and custody cases is ‘so great’ (see Lohmiller v. Lohmiller, 118 A.D.2d 760 [500 N.Y.S.2d 151]; cf., Wegman v. Wegman, 37 N.Y.2d 940 [380 N.Y.S.2d 649, 343 N.E.2d 288]; Rosenblitt v. Rosenblitt, [107 A.D.2d 292, 486 N.Y.S.2d 741] ), the court's discretionary power to limit disclosure and grant protective orders is equally broad” (Garvin v. Garvin, 162 A.D.2d 497, 499, 556 N.Y.S.2d 699).
In this matter, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to compel a physical examination and granting the plaintiff a protective order, as the defendant failed to establish that a legitimate purpose would be served by requiring the plaintiff to undergo a physical examination (id.).
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 29, 2008
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)