Legal Opinion

Pitrelli v. Cohen

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 1938PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNova, J.

This is a motion pursuant to rule 109, subdivision 6, of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out the defense set forth in paragraph “ ninth ” of the defendants’ answer because insufficient in law.

In the first cause of action the infant plaintiff, through his guardian, sues for damages alleged to have been sustained by him through the malpractice of the defendant doctors, whereby as the result of an operation the infant lost an eye.

1 In the second cause of action the infant plaintiff, through his guardian, seeks to recover damages from the defendant hospital by reason of its negligence in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lundergan v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  2. Maxson v. TomekAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  3. Regan v. Superb Theatre, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  4. Reilly v. RawleighAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pitrelli v. CohenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  2. Hencken v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API