Burch v. Greenwald
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
This is an appeal from a judgment following a nonsuit. Respondent contends that appellant presented no expert testimony that defendant did not show the skill and care consonant with proper and approved practice in his locality. (Pike v. Honsinger, 155 N. Y. 201.)
We disagree with this claim.. Dr. Akana’s testimony is fairly to the effect that it was the custom of surgeons in the locality involved, who extracted teeth, to examine the mouth the first thing after extracting teeth and if a bleeding artery is found to clamp or tie it. We deem this to be relevant and competent expert testimony as to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pike v. . HonsingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Benson v. . DeanNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Shaw v. TagueNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Dictz v. AronsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sanzari v. RosenfeldSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961