Case Name: Mary Krumeich, Respondent, v. Adolph H. Sundelson, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1928-05-31
Citations: 132 Misc. 292
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Krumeich, Respondent, v. Adolph H. Sundelson, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
Mary Krumeich, Respondent, v. Adolph H. Sundelson, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
May 31, 1928.
Lloyd Paul Stryker, for the appellant.
Peter A. Lee, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Assuming that " unusual circumstances," referred to by the Appellate Division in Shaw v. Samley Realty Co. (201 App. Div. 433), would be presented in a case where plaintiff would be unable to prove a cause of action without an examination of the defendant, we are not satisfied that such inability exists here. Medical knowledge would not seem to be essential to the expression of an opinion as to the danger of exposing the human body to alpine lamp rays within certain distances, and it affirmatively appears that one or more physicians other than the defendant examined plaintiff at or about the time of the treatment.
Order reversed, with disbursements, and motion granted.
All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Levy, JJ.