Pfeffer v. Maimonides Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pfeffer v. Maimonides Medical Center

95 A.D.2d 850, 464 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18794

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

DecidedJune 27, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 850 (Pfeffer v. Maimonides Medical Center) 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

Pfeffer v. Maimonides Medical Center, 95 A.D.2d 850, 464 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), entered February 5, 1982, which is in favor of defendant Weinstein, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion, and a new trial granted to plaintiff against defendant Weinstein, with costs to abide the event. At the end of the trial, the parties waived the marshaling of the evidence by the trial court. Thereafter, the court examined and ruled on the parties’ requests to charge. In our view, those requests, some of which were actually in the form of interrogatories, demonstrated a desire by the parties that the evidence be referred to in the charge. In view of the complex nature of this case and the parties’ requests to charge, the court should have marshaled the evidence. Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), entered February 5, 1982, which is in favor of defendant Weinstein, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion, and a new trial granted to plaintiff against defendant Weinstein, with costs to abide the event. At the end of the trial, the parties waived the marshaling of the evidence by the trial court. Thereafter, the court examined and ruled on the parties’ requests to charge. In our view, those requests, some of which were actually in the form of interrogatories, demonstrated a desire by the parties that the evidence be referred to in the charge. In view of the complex nature of this case and the parties’ requests to charge, the court should have marshaled the evidence. Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.2d 850, 464 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfeffer-v-maimonides-medical-center-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack