Kinckle v. Gasthalter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinckle v. Gasthalter

128 A.D.2d 504, 512 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44198

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 504 (Kinckle v. Gasthalter) 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

Kinckle v. Gasthalter, 128 A.D.2d 504, 512 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.), entered on July 12, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The waiver clause in the arbitration consent form signed by plaintiff Edmund Kinckle, Jr. (hereinafter the plaintiff) with the Ninth District Dental Society in which the plaintiff agreed [505]*505not to bring an action against the defendants was not pleaded as an affirmative defense by the defendants in their answer in this action. They have, therefore, waived that defense in this action (see, Marcoux v Marcoux, 123 AD2d 844; Surlak v Surlak, 95 AD2d 371, 383). For that reason, Special Term properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.), entered on July 12, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The waiver clause in the arbitration consent form signed by plaintiff Edmund Kinckle, Jr. (hereinafter the plaintiff) with the Ninth District Dental Society in which the plaintiff agreed [505]*505not to bring an action against the defendants was not pleaded as an affirmative defense by the defendants in their answer in this action. They have, therefore, waived that defense in this action (see, Marcoux v Marcoux, 123 AD2d 844; Surlak v Surlak, 95 AD2d 371, 383). For that reason, Special Term properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 504, 512 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinckle-v-gasthalter-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack