Corten v. Harbor Hospital, Inc.

279 A.D. 673, 108 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3428
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 26, 1951·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Evidence was adduced upon the trial from which the jury could find that respondent’s removal was an administrative act on appellant’s part, made over respondent’s protest and without the consent and against the advice of respondent’s surgeon, for appellant’s own purpose and benefit and not in the medical treatment of respondent, and that such removal was the competent producing cause of respondent’s injury, (Necolayjf v. Genesee Hosp., 270 App. Div. 648, 652, affd. 296 N. V. 936; Hendrickson v. Hodkin, 276 N. Y. 252, 258; Santos v. Unity Hosp., 301 N. Y. 153, 156; Gordon v. Harbor Hosp., 275 App. Div. [674]*6741047.) Appellant made no requests to charge (see Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co., 255 N. Y. 442, 445), and we find no error affecting a substantial right of appellant. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 106.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.

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

Corten v. Harbor Hospital, Inc., 279 A.D. 673, 108 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

279 A.D. 673 (Corten v. Harbor Hospital, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Temple University v. Americhoice of Pennsylvania Inc.
55 Pa. D. & C.4th 78 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 2001)
Schmitt v. House of St. Giles the Cripple
283 A.D. 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)