Perlman v. Perlman

New York Supreme Court

Perlman v. Perlman

178 Misc. 223, 33 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2597

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 178 Misc. 223 (Perlman v. Perlman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perlman v. Perlman, 178 Misc. 223, 33 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2597 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuff, J.

Motion by plaintiff to consolidate this action for malpractice with one instituted in the Municipal Court about a month prior to the commencement of this action, wherein a physician is suing plaintiff for his fee for the services which plaintiff herein alleges were negligently performed. I do not think that it is fair to require defendant to present his claim for value of services rendered to the jury which passes upon the serious charge made against him by plaintiff herein. Malpractice is an unusual action. It is not like the ordinary accident or contract actions. I think it should be separately treated. In consolidating there would be many incidents, such as the right to open and close, which would be affected. If there were consolidation, defendant would be required to take the witness stand to prove his claim for services or abandon that claim. He could then be questioned (cross-examination) exhaustively by plaintiff (and properly so) concerning the way he performed those services, in other words, the negligence, and plaintiff would thus have the benefit, to whatever degree it would help her, of defendant’s testimony. That would deny defendant a right which should be respected. On this claim for malpractice, it is defendant’s right to remain off the witness stand when putting in his defense or to put in no defense. It may be helpful or hurtful tp his cause. In the effect of his action the court is not interested. In declining to testify in his own behalf he could be exercising a right. That right would be lost if consolidation forced him to testify. Plaintiff may defend the Municipal Court action by asserting the alleged negligence therein. Likewise defendant could have counterclaimed for the value of his services in this action. The parties have assumed their respective positions. There is no reason to change them. Motion to consolidate, considering the nature of this action and all the circumstances, is denied.

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

Cuff, J.

Motion by plaintiff to consolidate this action for malpractice with one instituted in the Municipal Court about a month prior to the commencement of this action, wherein a physician is suing plaintiff for his fee for the services which plaintiff herein alleges were negligently performed. I do not think that it is fair to require defendant to present his claim for value of services rendered to the jury which passes upon the serious charge made against him by plaintiff herein. Malpractice is an unusual action. It is not like the ordinary accident or contract actions. I think it should be separately treated. In consolidating there would be many incidents, such as the right to open and close, which would be affected. If there were consolidation, defendant would be required to take the witness stand to prove his claim for services or abandon that claim. He could then be questioned (cross-examination) exhaustively by plaintiff (and properly so) concerning the way he performed those services, in other words, the negligence, and plaintiff would thus have the benefit, to whatever degree it would help her, of defendant’s testimony. That would deny defendant a right which should be respected. On this claim for malpractice, it is defendant’s right to remain off the witness stand when putting in his defense or to put in no defense. It may be helpful or hurtful tp his cause. In the effect of his action the court is not interested. In declining to testify in his own behalf he could be exercising a right. That right would be lost if consolidation forced him to testify. Plaintiff may defend the Municipal Court action by asserting the alleged negligence therein. Likewise defendant could have counterclaimed for the value of his services in this action. The parties have assumed their respective positions. There is no reason to change them. Motion to consolidate, considering the nature of this action and all the circumstances, is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 Misc. 223, 33 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perlman-v-perlman-nysupct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack