Krumeich v. Sundelson

132 Misc. 292, 229 N.Y.S. 488, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 897
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMay 31, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 Misc. 292 (Krumeich v. Sundelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Krumeich v. Sundelson, 132 Misc. 292, 229 N.Y.S. 488, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Assuming that “ unusual circumstances,” referred to by the Appellate Division in Shaw v. Samley Realty Co. (201 App. Div. 433), would be presented in a case where plaintiff would be unable to prove a cause of action without an examination of the defendant, we are not satisfied that such inability exists here. Medical knowledge would not seem to be essential to the expression of an opinion as to the danger of exposing the human body to alpine lamp rays within certain distances, and it affirmatively appears that one or more physicians other than the defendant examined plaintiff at or about the time of the treatment.

Order reversed, with disbursements, and motion granted.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

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

Related

Schonhous v. Weiner
138 Misc. 759 (New York Supreme Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 Misc. 292, 229 N.Y.S. 488, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krumeich-v-sundelson-nyappterm-1928.