## Facts

- An infant plaintiff, through his mother and guardian, sued building owners/landlords for injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of lead-based paint in a New York City apartment.
- The claimed injuries included learning disabilities, speech and language delays, developmental delays, and behavioral problems.
- During discovery, defendants moved to compel the plaintiff-mother (not the child) to undergo an IQ examination, asserting maternal IQ bore on whether the child’s deficits were hereditary rather than caused by lead exposure.
- Defendants supported the request with an affidavit from a pediatrician who asserted, based on unspecified “studies,” that maternal IQ is “extremely relevant” to assessing a child’s cognitive potential absent lead exposure.
- Plaintiffs opposed, contending the request had only hypothetical relevance, the mother’s mental abilities were not at issue, and the defense submission lacked identified supporting scientific literature.
- Plaintiffs also noted the child had already undergone extensive testing and referenced defense proof attributing the child’s deficiencies to non-lead “environmental influences.”

## Issues

1. Whether defendants in a lead-paint injury action may compel an infant plaintiff’s mother to submit to an IQ examination under CPLR article 31 as “material and necessary” disclosure.
2. Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion by denying an intrusive discovery request where the showing of relevance rested on generalized assertions and unspecified studies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order denying the motion to compel the plaintiff-mother’s IQ examination.
- The court held the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in concluding defendants failed to make the required factual demonstration of relevance.
- The court determined that, on this record, the plaintiff-mother could not be compelled to submit to the requested testing.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 3101(a), “material and necessary” disclosure is construed liberally, but trial courts retain broad discretion to supervise discovery and to deny requests that are speculative or disproportionate.
- When discovery seeks an intrusive examination of an individual whose condition is not placed in controversy by the pleadings, the requesting party must provide a factual demonstration of relevance, not mere potential relevance or conjecture.
- Courts may weigh the likely utility of the requested disclosure against privacy and dignitary burdens, particularly where alternative proof on causation and damages is available.
- Appellate review of discovery rulings is for abuse of discretion; a denial will be upheld if it reflects a reasonable balancing of relevance and intrusion on the record presented.

## Conclusion

The court upheld denial of compelled IQ testing of an infant plaintiff’s mother because defendants’ generalized causation theory and unsupported expert assertions did not establish a sufficiently concrete link between the test and disputed issues to justify an invasive intrusion into the mother’s privacy under New York’s disclosure rules.


Andon v. 302-304 Mott St. Assocs., 94 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2000)