Legal Opinion

Augenblick v. Augenblick

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.

In an action for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Hattie C. Augenblick, and for medical expenses, loss of services and consortium sustained by her husband, the plaintiff, Israel Augenblick, the defendants served a notice upon the plaintiffs’ attorneys, dated October 6, 1952, pursuant to the provisions of rule 121-a of the Rules of Civil Practice, to take the plaintiffs’ testimony before trial upon the following: “1. All the relevant facts and circumstances in connection with the accident, including negligence, contributory negligence, liability or damages.”

H…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Psota v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
  2. Maxson v. TomekAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  3. Wax v. SacksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pioneer Construction Company v. BergeronSupreme Court of Colorado · 1969
  2. Shoreham Opreating Corp. v. PeyserNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Munsie v. Highland HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  4. In re the Estate of MoritzNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
  5. Lipin v. SalkinNew York Supreme Court · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API