In Brown v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation225 AD2d 36, 648 N.Y.S.2d 880, [2d Dep't, 1996] the plaintiff had not undergone testing to determine if she had contracted the HIV virus, and in opposition to defendant's motion for an order compelling her to undergo the test, plaintiff urged that requiring her to be tested would be emotionally harmful, in that if she tested positive, she would not be able to continue to function. The court did not order plaintiff to be tested, but ruled that defendant was entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for injuries suffered after the initial six-month period following exposure unless she presented evidence of a positive HIV-antibody test, holding that "[t]he plaintiff's fear of contracting AIDS would be unreasonable as a matter of law after six months, assuming a negative HIV-antibody test result." (id., p. 49). The court reasoned that: "requiring proof of actual exposure . . . will, we believe, insure that there is a genuine basis for the plaintiff's fear of developing the disease, that the fear is not based on public misconceptions about the disease, and that such claims are treated consistently. Moreover, we emphasize that 'the existence of the channel for infection makes the threat of infection much more of a real possibility to be feared and far more than a speculative worry. Liability in the absence of a channel could provoke a flood of illjustified litigation. Of course, it is the channel for infection, not actual HIV transmission or infection, which much be proven. . . "