Dana v. Dana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dana v. Dana

26 A.D.2d 631, 272 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 631 (Dana v. Dana) 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

Dana v. Dana, 26 A.D.2d 631, 272 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., two physicians (who are nonparties to the action) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 23, 1965, which inter alia authorized settlement of the infant plaintiff’s action. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Upon plaintiffs’ application for entry of a compromise order herein, the court below at a Pretrial Term struck out proposed decretal provisions for the payment of medical fees allegedly owing to the appellants who were not parties to the action and over ivhom the court had no jurisdiction. In our opinion, notwithstanding the court’s opinion concerning the reason for its deletion of the proposed ordering paragraphs, appellants are not aggrieved persons entitled to appeal from the order (CPLR 5511; cf., Reardon v. Spagna, 284 App. Div. 975; see 8 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 525). Ughetta, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [48 Misc 2d 717.]

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., two physicians (who are nonparties to the action) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 23, 1965, which inter alia authorized settlement of the infant plaintiff’s action. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Upon plaintiffs’ application for entry of a compromise order herein, the court below at a Pretrial Term struck out proposed decretal provisions for the payment of medical fees allegedly owing to the appellants who were not parties to the action and over ivhom the court had no jurisdiction. In our opinion, notwithstanding the court’s opinion concerning the reason for its deletion of the proposed ordering paragraphs, appellants are not aggrieved persons entitled to appeal from the order (CPLR 5511; cf., Reardon v. Spagna, 284 App. Div. 975; see 8 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 525). Ughetta, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [48 Misc 2d 717.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 631, 272 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dana-v-dana-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack