Legal Opinion
Cooper v. Edinbergh
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 31, 1978PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Bentley Kassal, J.
All defendants move, under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 5) to dismiss the complaint, on the grounds that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214-a). There are two causes of action, one for medical malpractice and the second for implied contract.
*145FACTS
In July, 1961, plaintiff was examined by defendant, Dr. Brenner, who referred her to a surgeon, defendant Dr. Edinbergh, for an appendectomy, which Dr. Edinbergh performed in July, 1961, at the defendant Booth Memorial Hospital. During the course of the operation, the surgeon employed wire…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Flanagan v. Mount Eden General HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- General Stencils, Inc. v. ChiappaNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Conklin v. DraperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Conklin v. DraperNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Murphy v. St. Charles HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Moore v. Jackson Park HospitalIllinois Supreme Court · 1983
- Woolley v. HendersonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- In Re TMJ Implants Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1995
- Cooper v. EdinberghAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Moore v. Jackson Park HospitalIllinois Supreme Court · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.