Mullen v. McLaughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullen v. McLaughlin

4 A.D.2d 753, 164 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4871

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 753 (Mullen v. McLaughlin) 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

Mullen v. McLaughlin, 4 A.D.2d 753, 164 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by respondent’s testator, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for $36,861 in favor of the testator. In August, 1951 appellant, a dermatologist, gave the testator X-ray treatments for a skin condition. The claim is that the testator suffered roentgen dermatitis [754]*754as a result of appellant’s negligence. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless respondent, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon, stipulate to reduce the verdict to $27,500, in which event, the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict is excessive. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by respondent’s testator, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for $36,861 in favor of the testator. In August, 1951 appellant, a dermatologist, gave the testator X-ray treatments for a skin condition. The claim is that the testator suffered roentgen dermatitis [754]*754as a result of appellant’s negligence. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless respondent, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon, stipulate to reduce the verdict to $27,500, in which event, the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict is excessive. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 753, 164 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-1957.