Mayers v. Colcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mayers v. Colcher

245 A.D.2d 101, 665 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12919

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 101 (Mayers v. Colcher) 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

Mayers v. Colcher, 245 A.D.2d 101, 665 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered November 19, 1996, which denied a motion by defendants-appellants, pathologists and laboratory, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against movants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Appellants met their burden as movants of establishing, prima facie, a lack of negligence in their handling and analysis of certain tissue samples. Respondent, in turn, failed to rebut that showing with competent evidence to support the conclusion of her expert that the samples were contaminated as the result of negligence by appellants (see, Burt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 141 AD2d 378). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered November 19, 1996, which denied a motion by defendants-appellants, pathologists and laboratory, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against movants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Appellants met their burden as movants of establishing, prima facie, a lack of negligence in their handling and analysis of certain tissue samples. Respondent, in turn, failed to rebut that showing with competent evidence to support the conclusion of her expert that the samples were contaminated as the result of negligence by appellants (see, Burt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 141 AD2d 378). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 101, 665 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayers-v-colcher-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack