Back to feedAnalyzed Oct 15, 2026
(decision to limit observers upheld)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal
Hall v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Decided
- Oct 15, 2026
- Docket
- Index No. 152347/23|Appeal No. 7234|Case No. 2026-01516|
- Judges
- Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 06003
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary
AI breakdown
Where this case stands
Supreme Court: granted defendant's motion for a protective order limiting observer to a licensed psychologist.
This decision · Appeal
(decision to limit observers upheld)
TL;DR
- 1The case revolves around a man suing Columbia University and wanting an attorney present for his mental examination.
- 2The court decided to restrict the presence to a licensed psychologist, not the man’s attorney.
- 3This decision was based on ensuring the examination could be meaningful without outside influence.
Key issues
- 1
Should the attorney be allowed at the examination?
Holding · The court ruled that the attorney's presence could hinder the evaluation process.
Why it matters
This affects how independent examinations are conducted, balancing transparency with the integrity of the assessment.
If you were the judge?
A man wants his attorney present during a neuropsych exam. Should the court allow it?
- 1A man is suing Columbia University and wants his attorney to watch his neuropsychological exam.
- 2The university argues that having the attorney present could affect the exam's effectiveness.
- 3The court must decide whether to allow a third-party observer during this important evaluation.
Should the court allow a third-party observer during the ?
Vote to earn 10 Verdict Points
Parties
Appellant
Hall
Appellee
Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.
Roles are inferred from the case caption.
Opinion of the court
Hall v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.
2026 NY Slip Op 06003
October 15, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Earl Lafayette Hall, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: October 15, 2026
Index No. 152347/23|Appeal No. 7234|Case No. 2026-01516|
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, JJ.
Arye, Lustig & Sassower, P.C., New York (Mitchell J. Sassower of counsel), for appellant.
Rivkin Radler LLP, New York (Henry M. Mascia of counsel), for respondent.
[*1]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2026, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for a protective order precluding a third-party observer from being present at plaintiff's independent neuropsychological examination to the extent of limiting plaintiff to a third-party observer who is a licensed clinical psychologist of plaintiff's choosing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
On this record, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the presence of plaintiff's attorney would prevent defendant's expert neuropsychologist from "conducting 'a meaningful examination' " (Markel v Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc., 171 AD3d 28, 29 [1st Dept 2019]). The court relied on defendant's expert's unrebutted affidavit, which was supported by well-established standards of practice in the field of neuropsychology (Barraza v 55 W. 47th St. Co., 156 AD2d 271, 271 [1st Dept 1989]; cf. McNamara v Buresh, 223 AD3d 978, 979 [3d Dept 2024]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 15, 2026