Capuano v. Jacobs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capuano v. Jacobs

33 A.D.2d 743, 305 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2689

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 743 (Capuano v. Jacobs) 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

Capuano v. Jacobs, 33 A.D.2d 743, 305 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiff, entered October 28, 1968 in New York County upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term, in a malpractice action.

Memorandum by the court.

Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-respondent. Fair questions of fact were presented to the jury by the evidence adduced by both sides as to whether the action was commenced within the two-year Statute of Limitations mder the “ continuous treatment” theory (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N Y 2d 151) and whether the defendant’s conduct, if it was found to be malpractice, was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The verdict of the jury, in favor of the plaintiff, is supported by the evidence and we can see no legal reason for interfering with same.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiff, entered October 28, 1968 in New York County upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term, in a malpractice action.

Memorandum by the court.

Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-respondent. Fair questions of fact were presented to the jury by the evidence adduced by both sides as to whether the action was commenced within the two-year Statute of Limitations mder the “ continuous treatment” theory (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N Y 2d 151) and whether the defendant’s conduct, if it was found to be malpractice, was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The verdict of the jury, in favor of the plaintiff, is supported by the evidence and we can see no legal reason for interfering with same.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 743, 305 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capuano-v-jacobs-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack