Place v. Sutland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Place v. Sutland

257 A.D. 1057, 13 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9047

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1057 (Place 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

Place v. Sutland, 257 A.D. 1057, 13 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for malpractice. An issue of fact was presented for determination by the jury. Judgment and order reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and new trial granted. Hill, P. J., Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes for affirmance of the judgment appealed from on the ground that the only evidence that the defendant through his employees had indulged in bad practice referred to is found in the testimony of Dr. Greene as to statements made to him by the deceased that the employees had so instructed him. This evidence was received at the time it was offered over the objection of the defendant. The court limited it to the field of such statements when incorporated in the history the patient gave to his physician, and that such information may not be taken from that field and used to serve another purpose, namely, to be evidence of the truth of the facts contained in the recital.

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

Action for malpractice. An issue of fact was presented for determination by the jury. Judgment and order reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and new trial granted. Hill, P. J., Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes for affirmance of the judgment appealed from on the ground that the only evidence that the defendant through his employees had indulged in bad practice referred to is found in the testimony of Dr. Greene as to statements made to him by the deceased that the employees had so instructed him. This evidence was received at the time it was offered over the objection of the defendant. The court limited it to the field of such statements when incorporated in the history the patient gave to his physician, and that such information may not be taken from that field and used to serve another purpose, namely, to be evidence of the truth of the facts contained in the recital.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1057, 13 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/place-v-sutland-nyappdiv-1939.