Goldman v. Garofalo

71 A.D.2d 650, 418 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12874
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 23, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 650 (Goldman v. Garofalo) 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
Goldman v. Garofalo, 71 A.D.2d 650, 418 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinions

—In an action to recover fees paid to the defendant Lakeville Medical Laboratories, Inc., for pap smear tests performed during a period when Lakeville had no license to perform such tests, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 27, 1978, which (1) denied plaintiff’s motion for class action certification; and (2) denied the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Order, modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision denying the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and adding thereto a provision granting said cross motion and dismissing the complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although defendant Lakeville Medical Laboratories, Inc., concededly had no license to perform pap smear tests for the detection of cervical cancer during the period March 1, 1973 to June 30, 1976, there is no evidence that any of the approximately 96,000 tests performed during that period were defective. Since plaintiff and those she seeks to represent have had the benefit of the defendant laboratory’s work, they are not entitled to recover payments which they have already made; the parties, in these circumstances, should be left as they are (see Segrete v Zimmerman, 67 AD2d 999). Lazer, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rusin v. Design-Apart USA, Ltd.
2019 NY Slip Op 5172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Allstate Ins. v. VALLEY PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHAB.
475 F. Supp. 2d 213 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Metroscan Imaging, P.C. v. GEICO Insurance
13 Misc. 3d 35 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Mallela
175 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D. New York, 2001)
Citaramanis v. Hallowell
613 A.2d 964 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1992)
Conrad v. Hackett
149 Misc. 2d 56 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
Electrovoice International, Inc. v. Sarasohn Adjusting Co.
149 Misc. 2d 924 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
Hammerman v. Jamco Industries, Inc.
119 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Brandon v. Chefetz
121 Misc. 2d 54 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.
78 A.D.2d 83 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Goldman v. Garofalo
407 N.E.2d 1349 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.2d 650, 418 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-garofalo-nyappdiv-1979.