Lucey v. Harstedt
This text of 270 A.D. 900 (Lucey v. Harstedt) 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.
Opinion
Action to recover damages for trichinosis suffered by respondent Dorice Lucey as the result of eating fresh* pork purchased by her from the retailer, Harstedt, who bought the pork from the appellant, and by her husband, respondent Timothy J. Lucey, for medical expenses and loss of services. Judgment in favor of the respondents reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The record fails to disclose any proof of common-law negligence or any violation of the Agriculture and Markets Law, as amended. (Blume v. Trum Pork Stores, 269 App. Div. 1059; Dressier V. Merkel, Inc., 247 App. Div. 300, affd. 272 N. V. 574.) The findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury are affirmed. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
270 A.D. 900, 61 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucey-v-harstedt-nyappdiv-1946.