ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We reject the defendant's contention that the injured plaintiff should be compelled to submit to an additional physical examination. While there is no restriction in CPLR 3121 (a) on the number of examinations to which a party may be subjected, an additional examination is permissible only where the party seeking the examination demonstrates the necessity for it (see, Huggins v. New York City Tr. Auth., 225 A.D.2d 732; Young v. Kalow, 214 A.D.2d 559; Radigan v. Radigan, 115 A.D.2d 466). In addition, after a note of issue has been filed, as in this case, a defendant must demonstrate that unusual and unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue to justify an additional examination (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21; Frangella v. Sussman, 254 A.D.2d 391; Stella v. Ahmed, 223 A.D.2d 698). Here, the fact that the examining physician was subjected to professional discipline subsequent to his examination of the infant plaintiff does not justify an additional examination by another physician, as the mere concern that the plaintiffs may impeach the examining physician's credibility with this information is not a sufficient basis for a second examination (see, Cramer v. Winnick, 162 Misc.2d 715).
S. MILLER, J.P., THOMPSON, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.