Dascoli v. Indenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dascoli v. Indenbaum

31 A.D.2d 540, 295 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2937

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 540 (Dascoli v. Indenbaum) 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

Dascoli v. Indenbaum, 31 A.D.2d 540, 295 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 10, 1967, which granted defendant Indehbaum’s motion, made at the close of plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial, to dismiss the [541]*541complaint and (2) the judgment entered thereon on April 3, 1968. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the jury could reasonably have drawn the inference that defendant Indenbaum was guilty of malpractice (Prince v. City of New York, 21 A D 2d 668). The record book of Dr. Iervolino should .be admitted into evidence if the opinion contained therein was made by Dr. Boyd and not by Dr. Iervolino himself and if a proper foundation is laid for its introduction as a prior inconsistent statement (Larkin v. Nussau Elec. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 267, 269). Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Christ, J., dissent and vote to affirm the order and the judgment.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 10, 1967, which granted defendant Indehbaum’s motion, made at the close of plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial, to dismiss the [541]*541complaint and (2) the judgment entered thereon on April 3, 1968. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the jury could reasonably have drawn the inference that defendant Indenbaum was guilty of malpractice (Prince v. City of New York, 21 A D 2d 668). The record book of Dr. Iervolino should .be admitted into evidence if the opinion contained therein was made by Dr. Boyd and not by Dr. Iervolino himself and if a proper foundation is laid for its introduction as a prior inconsistent statement (Larkin v. Nussau Elec. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 267, 269). Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Christ, J., dissent and vote to affirm the order and the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 540, 295 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dascoli-v-indenbaum-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack