Moss v. Winkler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moss v. Winkler

4 A.D.2d 852, 166 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4561

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 852 (Moss v. Winkler) 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

Moss v. Winkler, 4 A.D.2d 852, 166 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The court erred in refusing to receive in evidence a portion of the hospital chart covering plaintiff’s hospitalization in the Millard Fillmore Hospital, Buffalo, New York, during the period of February 28, 1952 to March 16, 1952, and in refusing to permit plaintiff to qualify Doctor Carl Candilero of New York City as a medical expert and in refusing to permit the said doctor to answer various hypothetical questions propounded to him. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Erie Trial Term dismissing the complaint in a malpractice action, on motion by defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case.) Present—McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Williams and Goldman, JJ.

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

— Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The court erred in refusing to receive in evidence a portion of the hospital chart covering plaintiff’s hospitalization in the Millard Fillmore Hospital, Buffalo, New York, during the period of February 28, 1952 to March 16, 1952, and in refusing to permit plaintiff to qualify Doctor Carl Candilero of New York City as a medical expert and in refusing to permit the said doctor to answer various hypothetical questions propounded to him. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Erie Trial Term dismissing the complaint in a malpractice action, on motion by defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case.) Present—McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Williams and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 852, 166 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-winkler-nyappdiv-1957.