Wildey v. Kertzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wildey v. Kertzman

24 A.D.2d 519, 261 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3776

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

DecidedJune 28, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 519 (Wildey v. Kertzman) 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

Wildey v. Kertzman, 24 A.D.2d 519, 261 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff’s testatrix when a gauze pad was left in her body following surgery, the defendant Yonkers General Hospital appeals from: (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 28, 1964, [520]*520which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint as against it on the ground that the claim was barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations (see 44 Misc 2d 258); and (2) from so much of an order of said court, entered January 15, 1965, upon reargument, as adhered to the original decision. Order of January 15, 1965, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (Wolff v. Jamaica Hosp., 11 A D 2d 801; Isenstein v. Malcomson, 227 App. Div. 66). Appeal from order of October 28, 1964 dismissed, without costs. Raid order was superseded by the order of January 13, 1965, granting reargument. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, 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 personal injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff’s testatrix when a gauze pad was left in her body following surgery, the defendant Yonkers General Hospital appeals from: (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 28, 1964, [520]*520which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint as against it on the ground that the claim was barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations (see 44 Misc 2d 258); and (2) from so much of an order of said court, entered January 15, 1965, upon reargument, as adhered to the original decision. Order of January 15, 1965, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (Wolff v. Jamaica Hosp., 11 A D 2d 801; Isenstein v. Malcomson, 227 App. Div. 66). Appeal from order of October 28, 1964 dismissed, without costs. Raid order was superseded by the order of January 13, 1965, granting reargument. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 519, 261 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wildey-v-kertzman-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack