Windsong Lane Farms v. Telmark, LLC, 77 A.D.3d 1398 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Windsong Lane Farms v. Telmark, LLC, 77 A.D.3d 1398 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Abrams v. Bute (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Indeed, earlier cases from two of these same Departments expressly recognized that the scope of a pharmacists’ duty may, under certain circumstances, extend beyond merely filling a prescription with technical accuracy (see Eberle v Hughes, 77 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2010]; Hand v Krakowski, 89 AD2d 650, 650 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BURTON, BONNIE L. v. SCIANO, M.D., MICHAEL T.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The rule of ordinary care as applied to the business of a druggist means the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness and vigilance commensurate with the dangers involved and the consequences which may attend inattention’ ” (Eberle v Hughes, 77 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" Brumaghim v. Eckel
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: accord · confidence high
The rule of ordinary care as applied to the business of a druggist means the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness and vigilance commensurate with the dangers involved and the consequences which may attend inattention” (Hand v Krakowski, 89 AD2d 650, 651 [1982] [citation omitted]; accord Eberle v Hughes, 77 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2010]; see Willson v Faxon, Williams & Faxon, 208 NY 108, 114 [1913]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Windsong Lane Farms
v.
Telmark, LLC
Appeal No. 3.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 1, 2010.
77 A.D.3d 1398
Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Joseph D. McGuire, J.), entered September 26, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988 [1988]; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567 [1978]; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.