Lydamore v. Foote

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lydamore v. Foote

251 A.D. 775, 295 N.Y.S. 608, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7455

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

DecidedMay 14, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 775 (Lydamore v. Foote) 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

Lydamore v. Foote, 251 A.D. 775, 295 N.Y.S. 608, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of nonsuit, granted at the close of plaintiff’s case. The action was against the defendant, a dentist, for alleged malpractice, arising as stated in the complaint, through the careless and negligent conduct of the defendant in extracting a tooth, and in making sterile the instruments used. The answer alleges and admits, upon information and belief, that the infection charged “ set in in the area of the place where said tooth was extracted ” was caused by plaintiff’s negligence in failing to follow the defendant’s instructions as to postoperative care. From the testimony of the plaintiff, the evidence of a physician, and the allegation or admission quoted above, a prima facie case of malpractice was made out, and the order of nonsuit was error. Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Heffeman, JJ., concur; Bliss, J., dissents.

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

Appeal from a judgment of nonsuit, granted at the close of plaintiff’s case. The action was against the defendant, a dentist, for alleged malpractice, arising as stated in the complaint, through the careless and negligent conduct of the defendant in extracting a tooth, and in making sterile the instruments used. The answer alleges and admits, upon information and belief, that the infection charged “ set in in the area of the place where said tooth was extracted ” was caused by plaintiff’s negligence in failing to follow the defendant’s instructions as to postoperative care. From the testimony of the plaintiff, the evidence of a physician, and the allegation or admission quoted above, a prima facie case of malpractice was made out, and the order of nonsuit was error. Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Heffeman, JJ., concur; Bliss, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 775, 295 N.Y.S. 608, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lydamore-v-foote-nyappdiv-1937.