Moore v. Sutland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Sutland

257 A.D. 1019, 12 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8926

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

DecidedJune 13, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1019 (Moore v. Sutland) 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. Sutland, 257 A.D. 1019, 12 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, a patient of the defendant, had six teeth extracted, one being the upper right second bicuspid. After the extraction it was found that a portion of the tooth remained in her gum. The question was whether the portion of the tooth that was left in the gum was the result of the extraction of that tooth or of the adjoining tooth, the upper first right bicuspid. Defendant admits taking out the second upper right bicuspid, and there is evidence showing that the fragment was a part of that tooth. The evidence supports the verdict. Judgments and orders affirmed, with one bill of costs. Hill, P, J„ Bliss and Heffernan, JJ„ concur; Crapser, J., dissents, and votes for reversal of the judgments and for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

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

The plaintiff, a patient of the defendant, had six teeth extracted, one being the upper right second bicuspid. After the extraction it was found that a portion of the tooth remained in her gum. The question was whether the portion of the tooth that was left in the gum was the result of the extraction of that tooth or of the adjoining tooth, the upper first right bicuspid. Defendant admits taking out the second upper right bicuspid, and there is evidence showing that the fragment was a part of that tooth. The evidence supports the verdict. Judgments and orders affirmed, with one bill of costs. Hill, P, J„ Bliss and Heffernan, JJ„ concur; Crapser, J., dissents, and votes for reversal of the judgments and for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1019, 12 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-sutland-nyappdiv-1939.