From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendolia v. Saad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1994
201 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact, such as whether the drug manufactured by the appellant caused the injured plaintiff's breast cancer, whether the treating physician's use of the drug was reasonably foreseeable, and whether the warnings which accompanied the drug were adequate (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Johnson v. Johnson Chem. Co., 183 A.D.2d 64; Baker v. St. Agnes Hosp., 70 A.D.2d 400; cf., Martin v. Hacker, 83 N.Y.2d 1). The Supreme Court therefore properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mendolia v. Saad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1994
201 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Mendolia v. Saad

Case Details

Full title:JANET MENDOLIA et al., Respondents, v. MAYER J. SAAD et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Feb 28, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 843

Citing Cases

Tenuto v. Lederle Labs.

There are issues of fact as to the adequacy of the 1975 package insert for Orimune which cannot be resolved…

Tenuto v. Lederle Laboratories

There are issues of fact as to the adequacy of the 1975 package insert for Orimune which cannot be resolved…