Prime Care, Inc. v. Baumgarten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prime Care, Inc. v. Baumgarten

221 A.D.2d 214, 633 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11607

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 214 (Prime Care, Inc. v. Baumgarten) 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

Prime Care, Inc. v. Baumgarten, 221 A.D.2d 214, 633 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered July 21, 1994, awarding plaintiff damages in an action to recover for nursing services rendered, and bringing up for review an order which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ acceptance of services rendered after the alleged act of incompetence, failure to adduce expert opinion in support of their claim of incompetence, and execution of various documents acknowledging their responsibility to pay for services not covered by insurance show that the issues defendants seek to raise are not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover the price for the services [215]*215stipulated in the parties’ contract. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered July 21, 1994, awarding plaintiff damages in an action to recover for nursing services rendered, and bringing up for review an order which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ acceptance of services rendered after the alleged act of incompetence, failure to adduce expert opinion in support of their claim of incompetence, and execution of various documents acknowledging their responsibility to pay for services not covered by insurance show that the issues defendants seek to raise are not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover the price for the services [215]*215stipulated in the parties’ contract. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 214, 633 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prime-care-inc-v-baumgarten-nyappdiv-1995.