From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Engel v. Gerstenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1918
184 App. Div. 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

Summary

In Engel v. Gerstenfeld (184 App. Div. 953) a civil action was brought by the operator of a beauty parlor to recover the value of services in removing superfluous hair by the means of electrolysis.

Summary of this case from People v. Lehrman

Opinion

June, 1918.

Present — Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ.


Order of the Appellate Term reversed, with costs, and judgment of the Municipal Court unanimously affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that the evidence did not warrant the Appellate Term in deciding that the treatment administered by plaintiff constituted the practice of medicine, within the statutory definition thereof. (See 102 Misc. Rep. 97.)


Summaries of

Engel v. Gerstenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1918
184 App. Div. 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

In Engel v. Gerstenfeld (184 App. Div. 953) a civil action was brought by the operator of a beauty parlor to recover the value of services in removing superfluous hair by the means of electrolysis.

Summary of this case from People v. Lehrman
Case details for

Engel v. Gerstenfeld

Case Details

Full title:ROSE ENGEL, Appellant, v. MOLLIE GERSTENFELD, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 1, 1918

Citations

184 App. Div. 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

Citing Cases

People v. Lehrman

The information used words that are found in the Education Law and which have already been the subject of…