Order entered January 25, 1967 unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-appellant, and the motion for a physical examination is denied without prejudice to an application at the time of trial for a physical examination as to the then existing condition of the plaintiff. Some 20 months after the statement of readiness was filed by the plaintiff, the defendants-respondents brought this motion for a physical examination. Upon the papers submitted the motion should have been denied. Rule IV of part 1 (subd. 4, par. [g]) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of New York and Bronx County provides that after the filing of a statement of readiness "no pre-trial examination or other preliminary proceedings may be had unless * * * unusual and unanticipated conditions subsequently develop which make it necessary that further pre-trial examination or further preliminary proceedings be had". The moving defendants did not bring themselves within the exception to the rule. Their allegations in support of the motion do not show unusual and unanticipated conditions. The only excuse offered for not seeking the physical examination prior to the statement of readiness having been filed, is in effect, that they underestimated the extent of plaintiff's injuries. Upon this record such excuse is not tenable, for the bill of particulars clearly shows, and in detail sets forth the claimed injuries. It puts the defendants on notice as to their severity. It is quite apparent that the excuse offered is advanced solely to obviate rule IV of part 1 (subd. 4, par. [g]). In any event, even if defendants did indeed underestimate the extent of plaintiff's injuries, and for that reason did not timely seek a physical examination, nevertheless this proffered mistake in judgment does not come within the exception to rule IV of part 1 (subd. 4, par. [g]). It is not such a subsequent development as would allow a physical examination after the statement of readiness had been filed. While we deny this motion, we do note however that rule IV of part 1 (subd. 4, par. [g]) should not be interpreted to prevent a physical examination into conditions which of necessity could not have been determined prior to the time of filing the statement of readiness. For example, a physical examination to determine the extent of recovery from the injuries claimed could best be had shortly before trial, and long after the statement of readiness had been filed. The extent of recovery is an important issue that must be determined in every case where injuries are claimed. Consequently the defendant should be allowed to apply at the time of trial for a physical examination as to the then condition of the plaintiff. Testimony of the examining doctor should be limited to the scope above indicated.
Concur — Eager, J.P., Capozzoli, Rabin, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.