Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Gray v. Jaeger

Gray v. Jaeger

49 A.D.3d 287, 851 N.Y.2d 872
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 6, 2008
StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 287 (Gray v. Jaeger) 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
Gray v. Jaeger, 49 A.D.3d 287, 851 N.Y.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

As a result of this Court’s striking of defendants’ answer on a prior appeal (17 AD3d 286 [2005]), defendants are deemed to have admitted all traversable allegations in the complaint, i.e., those relating to liability-causation as well as negligence (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728 [1984]; see Koeppel v Park, 228 AD2d 288, 289 [1996]). Accordingly, at the trial on damages, defendants may not introduce evidence tending to [288]*288show that the injuries alleged in the complaint were not caused by defendant’s malpractice (id.). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.

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

Related

Rokina Optical Co. v. Camera King, Inc.
469 N.E.2d 518 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Koeppel v. Park
228 A.D.2d 288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 287, 851 N.Y.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-jaeger-nyappdiv-2008.