Blumberg v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blumberg v. Goldberg

261 A.D.2d 250, 690 N.Y.S.2d 237

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

DecidedMay 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 250 (Blumberg v. Goldberg) 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

Blumberg v. Goldberg, 261 A.D.2d 250, 690 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered February 2, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied third-party defendant I. Rausch & Sons’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[251]*251The motion of third-party defendant I. Rausch & Sons (Rausch) was properly denied since Rausch failed to meet its burden, at this stage of the proceedings prior to the completion of discovery, of tendering sufficient medical proof in admissible form to establish that plaintiffs injuries could be reasonably allocated or divided among the alleged prior and successive tortfeasors (compare, Dubrey v Champlain Val. Physicians Hosp. Med. Ctr., 189 AD2d 950, with Housepian v Kleinman-Cindrich, 226 AD2d 431, and Kalikas v Artale, 124 AD2d 645). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered February 2, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied third-party defendant I. Rausch & Sons’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[251]*251The motion of third-party defendant I. Rausch & Sons (Rausch) was properly denied since Rausch failed to meet its burden, at this stage of the proceedings prior to the completion of discovery, of tendering sufficient medical proof in admissible form to establish that plaintiffs injuries could be reasonably allocated or divided among the alleged prior and successive tortfeasors (compare, Dubrey v Champlain Val. Physicians Hosp. Med. Ctr., 189 AD2d 950, with Housepian v Kleinman-Cindrich, 226 AD2d 431, and Kalikas v Artale, 124 AD2d 645). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 250, 690 N.Y.S.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumberg-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack