Court Opinion

ID: 9876514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 23:00:27.972229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:45.715329
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.P.
(dissenting). I respectfully disagree with the majority that defendant or his expert were required to take any action to protect plaintiff’s rights, and I therefore dissent. There is no dispute that plaintiff’s attorney and a nurse accompanied plaintiff to the office of defendant’s expert for the previously scheduled psychological examination, and that plaintiff’s attorney left the office before the examination began. There is no indication that plaintiff’s attorney inquired whether the nurse would be permitted to observe the examination, or that the attorney asked the defense expert for permission to have a representative observe it, and plaintiff did not move for permission to have his attorney or another representative observe the examination (cf. Flores v Vescera, 105 AD3d 1340, 1340 [2013]). The parties presented varying evidence regarding what the defense expert said at the start of the examination, but they agree that the nurse was not present when the expert examined plaintiff. The record also establishes that neither plaintiff nor the nurse protested, and no one advised plaintiff to leave the examination room or to cease cooperating with the examination. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion to preclude defendant from introducing the expert’s testimony and report at trial. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the defense expert was not required to take any action prior to examining plaintiff and, in the absence of any motion or protest by plaintiff’s attorney or the nurse who was present, there is no basis upon which to preclude the expert’s testimony.
I agree with the majority that “[a] party is ‘entitled to be examined in the presence of [his or] her attorney or other . . . representative ... so long as [that person does] not interfere with the conduct of the examinations’ . . . , ‘unless [the] defendant makes a positive showing of necessity for the exclusion of’ such an individual” (A.W. v County of Oneida, 34 AD3d *15841236, 1237-1238 [2006]; see Flores, 105 AD3d at 1340-1341; Jessica H. v Spagnolo, 41 AD3d 1261, 1262-1263 [2007]). Nevertheless, as in many related situations in which a party “has the right to have an attorney observe the examination!, t]his right may, of course, be waived” (Ughetto v Acrish, 130 AD2d 12, 25 [1987], appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 871 [1987], reconsideration denied 70 NY2d 990 [1988]; see Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 AD2d 1038, 1038-1039 [1985]). There is no requirement that a representative of plaintiff be present during the examination of plaintiff by defendant’s expert and, indeed, plaintiff could waive the right to have a representative present at an examination merely by appearing for the examination without a representative, or by waiting too long to make a motion to enforce such right (see Pendergast v Consolidated Rail Corp., 244 AD2d 868, 869 [1997]). Consequently, plaintiff’s right to have a representative present was not violated inasmuch as “there is no indication in the record that any request for the presence [of the attorney or the nurse] was either made or denied” (Matter of Lisa Marie S., 304 AD2d 762, 763 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003], lv dismissed 100 NY2d 575 [2003]; cf. Pendergast, 244 AD2d at 869). Therefore, plaintiff’s “failure to demand his attorney’s [or other representative’s] presence at the exam is fatal to his claim” that he was improperly denied such presence (Matter of Rosemary ZZ., 154 AD2d 734, 735 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 702 [1990]). Based on that analysis, I conclude that Supreme Court “did not err in determining that, by failing to move for a protective order or seek guidance before the examination concerning counsel’s ability to be present or observe it (see CPLR 3103 [a]), . . . plaintiff waived his rights and was not entitled to preclusion” (Cunningham v Anderson, 85 AD3d 1370, 1373 [2011], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 948 [2011]), and I would therefore affirm the order.
Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.