Porcelli v. Zapparo
140 A.D.2d 423, 528 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4920
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 9, 1988·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
We find that the Supreme Court erred in granting the [424] defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The hospital record X-ray report bearing the defendant’s stamped signature constituted admissible documentary evidence (CPLR 4518 [b]) sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was involved in the alleged erroneous interpretation of the X ray. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Porcelli v. Zapparo, 140 A.D.2d 423, 528 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).
140 A.D.2d 423 (Porcelli v. Zapparo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rotundo v. S & C Magnetic Resonance Imaging P. C.
255 A.D.2d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Martinez v. Presbyterian Hospital
186 A.D.2d 369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)