Bolender v. Tops Markets, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bolender v. Tops Markets, LLC

61 A.D.3d 1436, 877 N.Y.S.2d 721

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 1436 (Bolender v. Tops Markets, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bolender v. Tops Markets, LLC, 61 A.D.3d 1436, 877 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered March 4, 2008 in a negligence action. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action, individually and on behalf of his son, seeking damages for injuries sustained by his son when he ingested allegedly tainted ground beef sold by defendant. Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting evidence establishing that his son suffered from E. coli poisoning as a result of ingesting ground beef sold by defendant (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered March 4, 2008 in a negligence action. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action, individually and on behalf of his son, seeking damages for injuries sustained by his son when he ingested allegedly tainted ground beef sold by defendant. Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting evidence establishing that his son suffered from E. coli poisoning as a result of ingesting ground beef sold by defendant (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 1436, 877 N.Y.S.2d 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolender-v-tops-markets-llc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack