Stitt v. Gold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stitt v. Gold

17 A.D.2d 642, 230 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8691

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.2d 642 (Stitt v. Gold) 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

Stitt v. Gold, 17 A.D.2d 642, 230 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against a physician and surgeon to recover damages for his alleged breach of contract to cure the plaintiff, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 9, 1962, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds: (1) that there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 107, subd. 3); and (2) that the cause of action did not accrue within the time limited by law for the commencement of an action thereon (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 107, subd. 5). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer the complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [33 Misc 2d 273.]

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

In an action against a physician and surgeon to recover damages for his alleged breach of contract to cure the plaintiff, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 9, 1962, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds: (1) that there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 107, subd. 3); and (2) that the cause of action did not accrue within the time limited by law for the commencement of an action thereon (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 107, subd. 5). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer the complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [33 Misc 2d 273.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 642, 230 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stitt-v-gold-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack