Department of Health v. Dunn

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Department of Health v. Dunn

129 N.Y.S. 29

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 4, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 129 N.Y.S. 29 (Department of Health v. Dunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Health v. Dunn, 129 N.Y.S. 29 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

GERARD, J.

This action was begun by plaintiff to recover from •defendant, a practicing physician, under section 1239 of the charter (Laws 1901, c. 466), a penalty of $100 for alleged violation of section 1237 of the charter, which makes it the duty of the attending physician to file a certificate of birth within ten days.

The child in question lived but a short time, and defendant filed a certificate of death, which gave the date of birth, but omitted to file the certificate of birth. Defendant, a reputable and well-known physician, pleads that this omission was caused by the confusion of the ■mother’s illness, etc. The charter provides that the commissioner of-health may excuse the omission, but the Municipal Court has no such power.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GERARD, J.

This action was begun by plaintiff to recover from •defendant, a practicing physician, under section 1239 of the charter (Laws 1901, c. 466), a penalty of $100 for alleged violation of section 1237 of the charter, which makes it the duty of the attending physician to file a certificate of birth within ten days.

The child in question lived but a short time, and defendant filed a certificate of death, which gave the date of birth, but omitted to file the certificate of birth. Defendant, a reputable and well-known physician, pleads that this omission was caused by the confusion of the ■mother’s illness, etc. The charter provides that the commissioner of-health may excuse the omission, but the Municipal Court has no such power.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.Y.S. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-health-v-dunn-nyappterm-1911.