Koch v. Lefkowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koch v. Lefkowitz

59 A.D.2d 614, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432

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

DecidedSeptember 7, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 614 (Koch v. Lefkowitz) 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

Koch v. Lefkowitz, 59 A.D.2d 614, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to permanently enjoin respondents from instituting any disciplinary actions or proceedings against any medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York who will administer vitamin B17/Laetrile to the petitioner, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 23, 1977, which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action and dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action in the nature of a justiciable controversy. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In view of the fact that there are no disciplinary actions or proceedings pending or contemplated [615]*615against the doctor here involved, we do not reach the merits. Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to permanently enjoin respondents from instituting any disciplinary actions or proceedings against any medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York who will administer vitamin B17/Laetrile to the petitioner, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 23, 1977, which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action and dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action in the nature of a justiciable controversy. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In view of the fact that there are no disciplinary actions or proceedings pending or contemplated [615]*615against the doctor here involved, we do not reach the merits. Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 614, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koch-v-lefkowitz-nyappdiv-1977.