Schustal v. Whitehead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schustal v. Whitehead

90 A.D.2d 542, 455 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18598

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 542 (Schustal v. Whitehead) 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

Schustal v. Whitehead, 90 A.D.2d 542, 455 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated October 27, 1981, as granted motions by defendants-respondents for leave to call a certain physician to testify regarding .the physical examination he conducted of plaintiff. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable by respondents, and motions denied. The record indicates that the respondents have not demonstrated a good cause to be relieved of the terms of a stipulation or written agreement concerning the testimony of the doctor in question. The fact that the physician’s findings might aid or influence the jury in the disposition of the case is insufficient to warrant relief from the clear and unequivocal stipulation or agreement. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated October 27, 1981, as granted motions by defendants-respondents for leave to call a certain physician to testify regarding .the physical examination he conducted of plaintiff. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable by respondents, and motions denied. The record indicates that the respondents have not demonstrated a good cause to be relieved of the terms of a stipulation or written agreement concerning the testimony of the doctor in question. The fact that the physician’s findings might aid or influence the jury in the disposition of the case is insufficient to warrant relief from the clear and unequivocal stipulation or agreement. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 542, 455 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schustal-v-whitehead-nyappdiv-1982.