Porcelli v. Zapparo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porcelli v. Zapparo

140 A.D.2d 423, 528 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4920

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

DecidedMay 9, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 423 (Porcelli v. Zapparo) 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

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).

Pincite

Opinion

We find that the Supreme Court erred in granting the [424]*424defendant 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

We find that the Supreme Court erred in granting the [424]*424defendant 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 423, 528 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porcelli-v-zapparo-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack