March 21, 2014
SHARELLE REYNOLDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
RICHARD KELLY, BETTE KELLY AND MARK KELLY, 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.
ATHARI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, UTICA (MO ATHARI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
BOEGGEMAN, GEORGE & CORDE, P.C., ALBANY (PAUL A. HURLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
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 A.D.3d 416, 416; see also Hughes v Farrey, 39 A.D.3d 431, 431; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715). We therefore dismiss the appeal.