Case Name: Steve L. Endresz, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Boy Endresz, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 1:) Steve L. Endresz, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Girl Endresz, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 2:) Janice Endresz, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 3:) Steve L. Endresz, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 4.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1967-10-31
Citations: 28 A.D.2d 1085
Docket Number: 
Parties: Steve L. Endresz, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Boy Endresz, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 1:) Steve L. Endresz, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Girl Endresz, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 2:) Janice Endresz, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 3:) Steve L. Endresz, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 4.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 1085–1085

Head Matter:
(October 31, 1967)
Steve L. Endresz, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Boy Endresz, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 1:) Steve L. Endresz, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Girl Endresz, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 2:) Janice Endresz, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 3:) Steve L. Endresz, Appellant-Respondent, v. Fred Friedberg et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action No. 4.)

Opinion:
Memorandum: Permission to plead over and assert causes of action which might be had under the theory of Ferrara v. GallucMo {supra) is meaningless and futile inasmuch as there can be no sufficient causes of action under the facts here present under the theory of the Ferrara case, or otherwise. (Appeal and cross appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term, dismissing certain cause of action for negligence.) Present — Williams, P. J., Henry, Del Veechio and Marsh, JJ. [52 Misc 2d 693.]