Spiegel v. Gnadzinski
155 A.D.2d 899
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1989·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinions
— Order reversed on the law without costs and defendant’s motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s complaint because a question of fact exists concerning whether plaintiff suffers from an injury unknown at the time of the release or suffers merely from an unanticipated consequence of a known injury (see, Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556).
All concur, except Boomer and Lawton, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Spiegel v. Gnadzinski, 155 A.D.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).
155 A.D.2d 899 (Spiegel v. Gnadzinski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Carola v. NKO Contracting Corp.
205 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Spiegel v. Gnadzinski
155 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)