Legal Opinion

Mackrell v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1944PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinbrink, J.

Plaintiff moves to strike out the third affirmative defense contained in the answer of the defendant Ginsberg as “ sham, irrelevant and redundant,” and for leave to amend the title of the action by correctly designating the name of the said defendant. The action is in malpractice. Plaintiff alleges that while she was a paying patient at a hospital maintained by the defendant, City of New York, she sustained injuries by reason of the negligence of the defendant Ginsberg, a physician employed at the said hospital by the defendant City of New York. The defense to which the motion is directed…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Derlicka v. LeoNew York Court of Appeals · 1939

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gerke v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Martinez v. ModicaNew York Supreme Court · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API