Munzer v. Blaisdell
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBenvenga, J.
Motion by defendant Carp to dismiss fifth amended complaint or, in the alternative, to strike out certain portions thereof. As has been pointed out, plaintiff has a cause of action based upon a violation of section 84 of the Mental Hygiene Law. (See Munzer v. Blaisdell, 183 Misc. 773, *778decided herewith.) True, the statute imposes a duty upon directors, superintendents and other persons in charge of institutions for the mentally ill. Nevertheless, if Carp and Blaisdell were parties to a conspiracy to divulge the contents of plaintiff’s case record, in violation of section 84 as plaintiff…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brackett v. . GriswoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Green v. . DaviesNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- People v. . McKaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Lonsdale v. SpeyerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Munzer v. BlaisdellNew York Supreme Court · 1944
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fitzgerald v. A. L. Burbank & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Lumbard v. Maglia, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Doe v. RoeNew York Supreme Court · 1977
- Superintendent of Insurance of New York v. FreedmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Fitzgerald v. Burbank & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971