Johnson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

13 A.D.2d 781, 215 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11213

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

DecidedMay 1, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 781 (Johnson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 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

Johnson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 13 A.D.2d 781, 215 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical and loss of services, defendant appeals from an [782]*782order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 10, 1960, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. It appears from the moving papers that the female plaintiff was a customer in defendant’s supermarket, being waited on by the produce manager of the store. As the manager was pulling a case of corn out of a refrigerated bin, a wire on the bottom of the case caught the bottom of the bin door and lifted it, with the result that it fell onto said plaintiff’s foot. The opposing affidavit, by defendant’s said employee, states that the ease of corn was being removed from the bin in the usual manner and that he had not seen the wire. In our opinion, it has not been established that under all the circumstances there is no triable issue of fact as to whether defendant was negligent. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical and loss of services, defendant appeals from an [782]*782order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 10, 1960, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. It appears from the moving papers that the female plaintiff was a customer in defendant’s supermarket, being waited on by the produce manager of the store. As the manager was pulling a case of corn out of a refrigerated bin, a wire on the bottom of the case caught the bottom of the bin door and lifted it, with the result that it fell onto said plaintiff’s foot. The opposing affidavit, by defendant’s said employee, states that the ease of corn was being removed from the bin in the usual manner and that he had not seen the wire. In our opinion, it has not been established that under all the circumstances there is no triable issue of fact as to whether defendant was negligent. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 781, 215 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-1961.