New York Supreme Court, 1964

Rottmann v. Stegemann

Rottmann v. Stegemann
New York Supreme Court · Decided April 1, 1964 · Meyer
42 Misc. 2d 562; 248 N.Y.S.2d 520; 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1910

Counsel

James T. McQuade for plaintiff. Marvin, Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley for Herman Stegemann, defendant.

Rottmann v. Stegemann

Opinion of the Court

Bernard S. Meyer, J.

This motion to strike the action from the calendar is granted and the action is stricken from the calendar. Plaintiff errs in his construction of the Special Rule Requiring Physical Examination and Exchange of Medical Information (Rules of Appellate Division, 2d Dept., part 4). Rule VI of part 4 provides that “No cause otherwise eligible to be noticed for trial may be noticed unless there has been compliance with this part, or an order dispensing with compliance ’ ’. While it is true that defendant may demand a physical examination under rule I of that fart, he is not obligated to. Plaintiff also may initiate physical examination procedure and until one of the parties has may not notice the case for trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.