Glazer v. Williams
201 A.D.2d 959, 610 N.Y.S.2d 909
Opinions
Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendants failed to meet their burden on this motion for summary judgment to establish as a matter of law that they were not chargeable with malpractice (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).
All concur except Callahan, J. P., and Doerr, J., who dissent and vote to reverse in the following Memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Glazer v. Williams, 201 A.D.2d 959, 610 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).
201 A.D.2d 959 (Glazer v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Metrokane Imports, Ltd. v. Kane, Dalsimer, Kane, Sullivan and Kurucz
150 A.D.2d 153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)