Legal Opinion
Allen v. Handszer
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 6, 1990PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Stanley L. Sklar, J.
In this motion for summary judgment defendant G.D. Searle & Co. (Searle) seeks to apply New York’s "borrowing statute”, CPLR 202, to dismiss plaintiff’s products liability suit, brought to compensate the plaintiff for injuries she allegedly sustained due to the use of an intrauterine contraceptive device.
The action is brought against Searle as the manufacturer of the C-7 IUD, and against Bernardo Handszer, the doctor who inserted the device on November 20, 1978. The IUD remained in place until August 24, 1979, when it was removed in a California…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Babcock v. JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Martin v. Julius Dierck Equipment Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- George v. Mt. Sinai HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Duffy v. Horton Memorial HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Viviano v. CBS, INC.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Colarossi v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- Callazo v. American Airlines, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1996
- Afanassieva v. Page Transportation, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 2021
- Holloway v. Holy SeeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2021