Malvica v. Blumenfeld
This text of 271 N.E.2d 227 (Malvica v. Blumenfeld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order affirmed, without costs. The case is governed by Milks v. McIver (264 N. Y. 267), the release having been given without reservation at a time when the fact of aggravation of the injury by malpractice was fully known, as the Appellate Division held, and thus is without the ambit of Derby v. Prewitt (12 N Y 2d 100). Contrary to appellant’s contention, section 15-105 of the General Obligations Law (formerly Debtor and Creditor Law, § 235) is not applicable. (See Rector of St. James Church v. Cty of New York, 261 App. Div. 614; contra, Berlow v. New York State Thruway Auth., 35 A D 2d 356.) Indeed, the same contention was argued and implicitly rejected in Rapp v. Myers (291 N. Y. 709).
Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bergan, Jasen and Gibson. Judges Burke and Breitel concur on constraint of Milks v. McIver (264 N. Y. 267).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
271 N.E.2d 227, 28 N.Y.2d 851, 322 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malvica-v-blumenfeld-ny-1971.