Klein v. Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Co.

149 A.D. 926, 133 N.Y.S. 1129

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1912

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D. 926 (Klein v. Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Co.) 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

Klein v. Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Co., 149 A.D. 926, 133 N.Y.S. 1129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbm-sements, and motion denied, with costs. We think that the order for the second examination should stand. It appears possible that the same cause required the amputation of both breasts, and if so, the plaintiff could not attribute the injury to the right breast, for which she seeks damages, to the negligence, or wholly to the negligence of the defendant complained of in this action. Defendant is not chargeable with shortcomings in the matter, and the facts shown justified the Special Term in granting the second order, which is properly limited in its scope. (See Dambmann v. Butterfield, 15 Hun, 495.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concm-red.

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

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbm-sements, and motion denied, with costs. We think that the order for the second examination should stand. It appears possible that the same cause required the amputation of both breasts, and if so, the plaintiff could not attribute the injury to the right breast, for which she seeks damages, to the negligence, or wholly to the negligence of the defendant complained of in this action. Defendant is not chargeable with shortcomings in the matter, and the facts shown justified the Special Term in granting the second order, which is properly limited in its scope. (See Dambmann v. Butterfield, 15 Hun, 495.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concm-red.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D. 926, 133 N.Y.S. 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-brooklyn-majestic-theatre-co-nyappdiv-1912.