Zaino v. Frutkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zaino v. Frutkin

249 A.D. 628, 290 N.Y.S. 907, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5298

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 6, 1936·Published

Opinion

Plaintiff-wife, a patient of defendant—a dentist—was injured when she stumbled over a control box alleged to have been placed in the passageway leading from the operating room. Judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion the plaintiff-wife and her husband, who sued for his expenses, established a prima Jade case and it was error to dismiss the complaint. It was for the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and plaintiff-wife’s alleged contributory negligence. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiff-wife, a patient of defendant—a dentist—was injured when she stumbled over a control box alleged to have been placed in the passageway leading from the operating room. Judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion the plaintiff-wife and her husband, who sued for his expenses, established a prima Jade case and it was error to dismiss the complaint. It was for the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and plaintiff-wife’s alleged contributory negligence. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Zaino v. Frutkin, 249 A.D. 628, 290 N.Y.S. 907, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

249 A.D. 628 (Zaino v. Frutkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.