Schrader v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schrader v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc.

276 A.D.2d 351, 714 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10580

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 351 (Schrader v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc.) 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

Schrader v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 351, 714 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about April 13, 2000, which, inter alia, denied the motion by defendant Warner-Lambert Company and the cross motion by defendant Sterling Winthrop, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The opinions of plaintiffs medical experts were sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether defendants’ drugs, ingested by plaintiffs mother during plaintiffs gestation, caused plaintiffs birth defects, and as to whether the warnings contained in Warner-Lambert’s drug, Dilantin, were adequate. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about April 13, 2000, which, inter alia, denied the motion by defendant Warner-Lambert Company and the cross motion by defendant Sterling Winthrop, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The opinions of plaintiffs medical experts were sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether defendants’ drugs, ingested by plaintiffs mother during plaintiffs gestation, caused plaintiffs birth defects, and as to whether the warnings contained in Warner-Lambert’s drug, Dilantin, were adequate. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 351, 714 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schrader-v-sterling-winthrop-inc-nyappdiv-2000.