Mack v. Frieder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mack v. Frieder

48 A.D.2d 855, 368 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10080

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

DecidedJune 9, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 855 (Mack v. Frieder) 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

Mack v. Frieder, 48 A.D.2d 855, 368 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 14, 1974, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order modified by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof, the following: "without prejudice to renewal after completion of all preliminary procedures”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In this malpractice action, in which the defendant doctor raises the defense that the Workmen’s Compensation Law provided plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedy, the proofs are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Garcia v Iserson (33 NY2d 421). Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Cohalan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 14, 1974, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order modified by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof, the following: "without prejudice to renewal after completion of all preliminary procedures”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In this malpractice action, in which the defendant doctor raises the defense that the Workmen’s Compensation Law provided plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedy, the proofs are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Garcia v Iserson (33 NY2d 421). Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Cohalan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 855, 368 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-frieder-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack