Case Name: SMYTH v. LICHTENSTEIN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-03-24
Citations: 122 N.Y.S. 74
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMYTH v. LICHTENSTEIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 122
Pages: 74–76

Head Matter:
(137 App. Div. 335.)
SMYTH v. LICHTENSTEIN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 24, 1910.)
Damages (§ 206 )—Proceedings for Assessment—Physical Examination of Person Injured.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 873, providing that, in actions for damages for personal injuries, defendant, on presenting satisfactory evidence that he is ignorant of the nature of the injuries, is entitled to an order requiring plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by physicians, such an order was improperly granted in an action for alleged indignities and assault, where it appeared that defendant’s purpose was not to obtain evidence of plaintiff’s physical injuries, but to inquire into her previous history and physical condition.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. § 531; Dec. Dig. § 206; Discovery, Cent. Dig. §§ 92-98.]
Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, X, dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Marguerite Smyth, an infant, by Ira M. Smyth, her guardian ad litem, against Isaac Lichtenstein. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order providing for the physical examination of plaintiff as an adverse witness before trial, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and MILLER, JJ. .
S. A. Lowenstein, for appellant.
Epstein Bros. (Jesse S. Epstein, of counsel), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
CLARKE, J.
This is an action to recover damages for alleged indignities and assault. In addition to the order for the examination of the plaintiff upon the issues of the action, which we have determined ought not to have been granted in a decision handed down herewith (122 N. Y. Supp. 73), an order was made requiring the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination as an adverse witness.
The plaintiff has furnished a bill of particulars. The defendant in his answer has denied the assault. It is apparent from the complaint and the bill of particulars that the gravamen of this action consists of the indignities to which plaintiff alleges she was subjected. No necessity for a physical examination is shown. It is apparent from the moving papers that the purpose of the defendant is, not to obtain evidence of the physical injuries alleged to have been suffered as the result of his assault, but to inquire into her previous history and physical condition. If an examination for such purpose could ever be permitted, we are satisfied that the moving affidavits are insufficient and of no probative value. We think that the order for the examination in the case at bar does not come fairly within the intent of section 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but that the examination is sought for ulterior purposes.
The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.
SCOTT and MILLER, JJ., concur.