Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

236 A.D. 804
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1932·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. The art has developed to such an extent that the use of X-ray photography has become a common and generally accepted procedure in medical and surgical diagnosis. This court, therefore, recedes from the determination made by it in Lacqua v. General Linen Supply & Laundry Co., Inc. (227 App. Div. 794), decided on the authority of Van Orden v. Madow (207 id. 827), and will follow the rule adopted in the other Departments. (Hayt v. Brewster, Gordon & Co., Inc., 199 App. Div. 68, Fourth Dept.; Hollister v. Robertson, 208 id. 449, Third Dept.; McInnes v. Cannon, 225 id. 852, First Dept.) Such examination should be permitted under such regulations as may be deemed necessary and proper. Examination to proceed on five days’ notice. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 236 A.D. 804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

236 A.D. 804 (Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Castrillon v. City of New York
91 A.D.2d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp.
272 A.D.2d 101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1947)
Mitchell v. Pure Oil Co.
20 F. Supp. 1021 (E.D. New York, 1937)
Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Matthews
170 So. 686 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1936)
Reiss v. Kirkman & Son, Inc.
242 A.D. 77 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)