Weber v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. Levine

281 A.D.2d 474, 721 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2340

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 474 (Weber v. Levine) 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

Weber v. Levine, 281 A.D.2d 474, 721 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated June 12, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants Muriel Kaiser and Horton Memorial Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff Heidi Weber’s bedrails were in the raised position, thereby requiring the denial of the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, CPLR 3212; see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated June 12, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants Muriel Kaiser and Horton Memorial Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff Heidi Weber’s bedrails were in the raised position, thereby requiring the denial of the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, CPLR 3212; see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 474, 721 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-levine-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack