Centeno v. City of New York
This text of 358 N.E.2d 520 (Centeno v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order affirmed, without costs, on the Per Curiam opinion at the Appellate Division (48 AD2d 812).
Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke. Judge Fuchsberg dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum: I would re[933]*933verse on the well-written dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Emilio Nunez at the Appellate Division, emphasizing that the fact that a departure from accepted medical practice occurs in a psychiatric rather than in a nonpsychiatric setting is only an element to be weighed along with all the other circumstances in a particular case and is not the premise for an application of different legal principles.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
358 N.E.2d 520, 40 N.Y.2d 932, 389 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centeno-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1976.