Galdi v Kaliya

Annotate this Case
[*1] Galdi v Kaliya 2011 NY Slip Op 51256(U) Decided on July 6, 2011 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 6, 2011
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570753/09.

Catherine Galdi, Plaintiff-Respondent, - -

against

Aron Kaliya and RGI Service Corp., Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated February 1, 2011, which denied their motion to vacate their notice of trial and for leave to conduct additional discovery.

 

Per Curiam.

Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated February 1, 2011, modified by directing plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; as modified, affirmed, without costs.

In this action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff pedestrian as a result of a motor vehicle accident, defendants' expert orthopedic surgeon died following the filing of the notice of trial. As a result, defendants sought an additional medical examination of plaintiff by an orthopedist who would be available to testify at trial. The unanticipated death of defendants' orthopedist after examining plaintiff constituted an "unusual and unanticipated condition[]" which warranted a further physical examination of plaintiff "after [the] action ha[d] been placed on the trial calendar" (22 NYCRR 208.17[d]; see Schissler v Brookdale Hosp. Ctr., 289 AD2d 469, 470 [2001]; Rosado v A & P Food Store, 26 Misc 3d 935, 940 [2009]).

Under these circumstances, the equities are properly balanced by directing plaintiff to submit to the additional physical examination without vacating the notice of trial (see Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 AD2d 376 [1990]; see generally Acevedo v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 310 [2002]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 06, 2011

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.