Schoenbaum v. Alper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schoenbaum v. Alper

250 A.D. 772, 293 N.Y.S. 817, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8935

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D. 772 (Schoenbaum v. Alper) 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

Schoenbaum v. Alper, 250 A.D. 772, 293 N.Y.S. 817, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages against the defendant, a dentist, for alleged malpractice, judgment in favor of defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to the appellants to abide the went. We are of the opinion that, in view of the defendant’s own admission as to his duty in the event that he fractured the jaw of the plaintiff wife, and on the whole case as presented by this record, the plaintiffs were entitled to a clear and unequivocal charge that, as a matter of law, it was the defendant’s duty to disclose that condition to the plaintiff wife in order that she might submit herself to treatment. The question is presented by plaintiffs’ exception to the charge as modified at folios 968-969 of the record. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages against the defendant, a dentist, for alleged malpractice, judgment in favor of defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to the appellants to abide the went. We are of the opinion that, in view of the defendant’s own admission as to his duty in the event that he fractured the jaw of the plaintiff wife, and on the whole case as presented by this record, the plaintiffs were entitled to a clear and unequivocal charge that, as a matter of law, it was the defendant’s duty to disclose that condition to the plaintiff wife in order that she might submit herself to treatment. The question is presented by plaintiffs’ exception to the charge as modified at folios 968-969 of the record. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 772, 293 N.Y.S. 817, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoenbaum-v-alper-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack