Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action after he allegedly was injured during an altercation with the individual defendants. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants are not entitled to conduct a psychiatric examination of the plaintiff. The defendants failed to meet their initial burden of showing that the plaintiff's mental condition is "in controversy" (CPLR 3121; see Dillenbeck v Hess,<...
Let's get started

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.