Rokita v. Germaine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rokita v. Germaine

8 A.D.2d 620, 185 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9333

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

DecidedApril 6, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.2d 620 (Rokita v. Germaine) 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

Rokita v. Germaine, 8 A.D.2d 620, 185 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a patient to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the careless and [621]*621negligent conduct of physicians and a hospital in performing an operation and by her husband for medical expenses and loss of services (1st and 3d causes of action), the appeal is (1) from an order entered June 9, 1958 granting the hospital’s motion to dismiss those causes of action as to it, (2) from an order entered August 19, 1958 which on reargument adhered to the original decision, and (3) from the judgment entered on said orders. Order entered August 19, 1958 and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In affirming we are not passing on whether these causes of action sound in negligence or malpractice, as in either event they are barred by the Statute of Limitations. (Cf. Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 49, 50.) Appeal from order entered June 9, 1958 dismissed, without costs. (Manfra v. City of New York, 6 A D 2d 817.) Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallman and Kleinfeld, JJ. [12 Misc 2d 84.]

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

In an action by a patient to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the careless and [621]*621negligent conduct of physicians and a hospital in performing an operation and by her husband for medical expenses and loss of services (1st and 3d causes of action), the appeal is (1) from an order entered June 9, 1958 granting the hospital’s motion to dismiss those causes of action as to it, (2) from an order entered August 19, 1958 which on reargument adhered to the original decision, and (3) from the judgment entered on said orders. Order entered August 19, 1958 and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In affirming we are not passing on whether these causes of action sound in negligence or malpractice, as in either event they are barred by the Statute of Limitations. (Cf. Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 49, 50.) Appeal from order entered June 9, 1958 dismissed, without costs. (Manfra v. City of New York, 6 A D 2d 817.) Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallman and Kleinfeld, JJ. [12 Misc 2d 84.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 620, 185 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rokita-v-germaine-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack