Moore v. London

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. London

29 A.D.2d 666, 286 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 666 (Moore v. London) 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

Moore v. London, 29 A.D.2d 666, 286 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for assault against a physician, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the, Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 26, 1966, in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, whether the paper signed by plaintiff constituted a valid consent to defendant’s operation and treatment procedure, under the facts and circumstances here proved, constituted a question of fact for the jury. It was for the jury to determine whether an emergency situation occurred or was present which justified or excused defendant’s actions in performing a. hysterectomy and Caesarian section when engaged for delivery of a child (Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 211 N. Y. 125; Scott v. Kaye, 24 A D 2d 890; 56 ALR 2d 704). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for assault against a physician, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the, Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 26, 1966, in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, whether the paper signed by plaintiff constituted a valid consent to defendant’s operation and treatment procedure, under the facts and circumstances here proved, constituted a question of fact for the jury. It was for the jury to determine whether an emergency situation occurred or was present which justified or excused defendant’s actions in performing a. hysterectomy and Caesarian section when engaged for delivery of a child (Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 211 N. Y. 125; Scott v. Kaye, 24 A D 2d 890; 56 ALR 2d 704). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 666, 286 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-london-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack