Fortgang v. Alpert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fortgang v. Alpert

256 A.D. 949, 10 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5591

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 949 (Fortgang v. Alpert) 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

Fortgang v. Alpert, 256 A.D. 949, 10 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by a physician to recover from defendant for services rendered to defendant and to defendant’s deceased daughter. Order, made on reargument, denying defendant’s motion to modify the notice of examination before trial, modified by striking out item 10 from the notice, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs; the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. Appeal from the original order dismissed, without costs. Item 10 in the notice of examination is in general terms vague and likely to cause confusion. Items 7 and 8 are proper for the reason that defendant has waived the privilege of secrecy. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 354; Clifford v. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 349.) Defendant is not privileged as to matters demanded by items 2 and 3 in the notice, as it does not appear that defendant is a personal representative. Furthermore, if defendant is such representative the privilege has been waived. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Action by a physician to recover from defendant for services rendered to defendant and to defendant’s deceased daughter. Order, made on reargument, denying defendant’s motion to modify the notice of examination before trial, modified by striking out item 10 from the notice, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs; the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. Appeal from the original order dismissed, without costs. Item 10 in the notice of examination is in general terms vague and likely to cause confusion. Items 7 and 8 are proper for the reason that defendant has waived the privilege of secrecy. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 354; Clifford v. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 349.) Defendant is not privileged as to matters demanded by items 2 and 3 in the notice, as it does not appear that defendant is a personal representative. Furthermore, if defendant is such representative the privilege has been waived. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 949, 10 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortgang-v-alpert-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack