Small v. Lauersen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Small v. Lauersen

276 A.D.2d 382, 714 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10633

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 382 (Small v. Lauersen) 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

Small v. Lauersen, 276 A.D.2d 382, 714 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered April 30, 1999, which, in an action for medical malpractice, denied defendant-appellant hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether defendant hospital failed to follow plaintiffs doctor’s orders by not performing a second sonogram (see, Collins v New York Hosp., 49 NY2d 965). Plaintiff’s doctor’s testimony that his treatment would have been the same regardless of the results of a second sonogram raises an issue of credibility inappropriate for summary judgment treatment. The foregoing is not to be understood as a limitation of issues of fact for trial. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered April 30, 1999, which, in an action for medical malpractice, denied defendant-appellant hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether defendant hospital failed to follow plaintiffs doctor’s orders by not performing a second sonogram (see, Collins v New York Hosp., 49 NY2d 965). Plaintiff’s doctor’s testimony that his treatment would have been the same regardless of the results of a second sonogram raises an issue of credibility inappropriate for summary judgment treatment. The foregoing is not to be understood as a limitation of issues of fact for trial. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 382, 714 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-lauersen-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack