De Maio v. Coppola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Maio v. Coppola

52 A.D.2d 633, 382 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12279

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

DecidedApril 26, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 633 (De Maio v. Coppola) 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

De Maio v. Coppola, 52 A.D.2d 633, 382 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 19, 1975, as (1) granted the branch of plaintiffs’ motion which sought to set aside the stipulation of discontinuance as to the infant plaintiff and (2) restored the action to the Trial Calendar for jury selection. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and motion remanded to Special Term for a hearing, before a Judge other than the one who made the order under review, to determine whether the testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness establishes a causal connection between the prescribed drug and the injury; if such a connection is established, the Hearing Judge is to set aside the stipulation as to the infant plaintiff; if not, the motion as to her is to be denied. The above disposition was agreed to by counsel for the parties upon the argument of the appeal. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 19, 1975, as (1) granted the branch of plaintiffs’ motion which sought to set aside the stipulation of discontinuance as to the infant plaintiff and (2) restored the action to the Trial Calendar for jury selection. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and motion remanded to Special Term for a hearing, before a Judge other than the one who made the order under review, to determine whether the testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness establishes a causal connection between the prescribed drug and the injury; if such a connection is established, the Hearing Judge is to set aside the stipulation as to the infant plaintiff; if not, the motion as to her is to be denied. The above disposition was agreed to by counsel for the parties upon the argument of the appeal. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 633, 382 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-maio-v-coppola-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack