Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

20 A.D.2d 657, 246 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 657 (Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co.) 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

Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 20 A.D.2d 657, 246 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the defendant King Kullen Grocery Company, Inc., by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, appeals from so much of its order, dated June 22, 1962, as affirmed a judgment of the former Municipal Court of the City of New York, entered January 3, 1962 on a jury’s verdict, insofar as such judgment was in favor of plaintiffs and against said defendant. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. The proof in this record, as submitted by plaintiffs, showed that the female plaintiff was shopping in said defendant’s supermarket; that as she stood before a display of bottles filled with a carbonated beverage, one of the bottles exploded and cut her face; and that she had not touched any of the bottles. No evidence was offered by defendants. In our opinion, this proof was sufficient to establish, prima facie, the negligence of said defendant and to shift to it the burden of going forward with evidence that it was not at fault, since it had exclusive control of the supermarket and the bottles (Day v. Grand Union Co., 280 App. Div. 253, affd. 304 N. Y. 821). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the defendant King Kullen Grocery Company, Inc., by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, appeals from so much of its order, dated June 22, 1962, as affirmed a judgment of the former Municipal Court of the City of New York, entered January 3, 1962 on a jury’s verdict, insofar as such judgment was in favor of plaintiffs and against said defendant. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. The proof in this record, as submitted by plaintiffs, showed that the female plaintiff was shopping in said defendant’s supermarket; that as she stood before a display of bottles filled with a carbonated beverage, one of the bottles exploded and cut her face; and that she had not touched any of the bottles. No evidence was offered by defendants. In our opinion, this proof was sufficient to establish, prima facie, the negligence of said defendant and to shift to it the burden of going forward with evidence that it was not at fault, since it had exclusive control of the supermarket and the bottles (Day v. Grand Union Co., 280 App. Div. 253, affd. 304 N. Y. 821). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 657, 246 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyams-v-king-kullen-grocery-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack