Schnee v. Askin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schnee v. Askin

1 A.D.2d 780, 147 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6691

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 780 (Schnee v. Askin) 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

Schnee v. Askin, 1 A.D.2d 780, 147 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeals are from an order dated April 14, 1955, which denied appellant’s motion for a second physical examination of respondent Natalie Schnee, and from an order dated June 27, 1955, which on reargument adhered to the original decision. Order dated June 27, 1955, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appeal from order dated April 14, 1955, dismissed, without costs. Appellant was fully informed of the [781]*781nature and extent of the injuries claimed by respondent Natalie Schnee through her bill of particulars before the first examination took place. The supporting affidavits on the motions are palpably insufficient. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeals are from an order dated April 14, 1955, which denied appellant’s motion for a second physical examination of respondent Natalie Schnee, and from an order dated June 27, 1955, which on reargument adhered to the original decision. Order dated June 27, 1955, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appeal from order dated April 14, 1955, dismissed, without costs. Appellant was fully informed of the [781]*781nature and extent of the injuries claimed by respondent Natalie Schnee through her bill of particulars before the first examination took place. The supporting affidavits on the motions are palpably insufficient. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 780, 147 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnee-v-askin-nyappdiv-1956.