Apicella v. Merolla's Market, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Apicella v. Merolla's Market, Inc.

283 A.D. 1056, 131 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6299

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 21, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 1056 (Apicella v. Merolla's Market, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apicella v. Merolla's Market, Inc., 283 A.D. 1056, 131 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and the motion denied without prejudice. The affidavit of the physician is insufficient to show causal relation between the injuries alleged to have been received and the ensuing death of plaintiff’s intestate. The affidavit does not disclose what “medical information” was submitted to the doctor and the opinion expressed by him after a study thereof consists of a statement of facts relating to the working ability of plaintiff’s intestate. The so-called “ diagnostic conclusion ” that the trauma aggravated an alleged pre-existing psychotic condition is not bottomed upon any adequate and properly proven facts. Present — Callahan, Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and the motion denied without prejudice. The affidavit of the physician is insufficient to show causal relation between the injuries alleged to have been received and the ensuing death of plaintiff’s intestate. The affidavit does not disclose what “medical information” was submitted to the doctor and the opinion expressed by him after a study thereof consists of a statement of facts relating to the working ability of plaintiff’s intestate. The so-called “ diagnostic conclusion ” that the trauma aggravated an alleged pre-existing psychotic condition is not bottomed upon any adequate and properly proven facts. Present — Callahan, Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1056, 131 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apicella-v-merollas-market-inc-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack