| Reynolds v Kelly |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01931 [115 AD3d 1248] |
| March 21, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Sharelle Reynolds, Appellant, v Richard Kelly et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C., Albany (Paul A. Hurley of counsel), for
defendants-respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered November 29, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order disqualifying the designated defense examiner.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of her exposure to lead paint as a child while residing in an apartment owned by defendants. Plaintiff contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying her cross motion for a protective order seeking disqualification of the designated defense examiner, a neuropsychologist, or, in the alternative, directing that the examination be recorded. While this appeal was pending, the challenged examination was conducted and the examiner has since issued a report. We conclude that plaintiff's appeal is moot as a result of those intervening circumstances, and this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see Cuevas v 1738 Assoc., L.L.C., 111 AD3d 416, 416 [2013]; see also Hughes v Farrey, 39 AD3d 431, 431 [2007]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). We therefore dismiss the appeal. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.