Berlin v. Bulkowstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berlin v. Bulkowstein

249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 91, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5307

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 630 (Berlin v. Bulkowstein) 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

Berlin v. Bulkowstein, 249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 91, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for malpractice against a dentist by plaintiff wife and for loss of services, etc., by plaintiff husband. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The X-ray plates were erroneously admitted. They were not admissible under section 37-4-a of the Civil Practice Act. They were not properly authenticated. While discretion to grant the motion to amend the answer by pleading a prior judgment might have been exercised in favor of the motion, in view of plaintiffs’ consent, the opportunity to amend at Special Term is now afforded, and it will there be made clear whether the judgment was against one or both plaintiffs. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Action for malpractice against a dentist by plaintiff wife and for loss of services, etc., by plaintiff husband. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The X-ray plates were erroneously admitted. They were not admissible under section 37-4-a of the Civil Practice Act. They were not properly authenticated. While discretion to grant the motion to amend the answer by pleading a prior judgment might have been exercised in favor of the motion, in view of plaintiffs’ consent, the opportunity to amend at Special Term is now afforded, and it will there be made clear whether the judgment was against one or both plaintiffs. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 91, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berlin-v-bulkowstein-nyappdiv-1936.