McArdle v. M & M Farms of New City, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McArdle v. M & M Farms of New City, Inc.

90 A.D.2d 538, 455 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18591

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1982·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Skahen, J.), entered April 29, 1982, which is in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the action at the close of the plaintiff’s case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Upon a defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff is entitled to the most favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence (see 8 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Frac, § 59:17). Applying this rule to the evidence herein, and taking particular note of the written statement made by defendant’s manager five days after the accident, we hold that plaintiff established a prima facie case on the issue of defendant’s awareness of the condition that caused plaintiff to fall (see Kelsey v Port Auth. of N. Y. & N. J., 52 AD2d 801; Gramm v State of New York, 28 AD2d 787, affd 21 NY2d 1025). Damiani, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and O’Connor, 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, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Skahen, J.), entered April 29, 1982, which is in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the action at the close of the plaintiff’s case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Upon a defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff is entitled to the most favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence (see 8 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Frac, § 59:17). Applying this rule to the evidence herein, and taking particular note of the written statement made by defendant’s manager five days after the accident, we hold that plaintiff established a prima facie case on the issue of defendant’s awareness of the condition that caused plaintiff to fall (see Kelsey v Port Auth. of N. Y. & N. J., 52 AD2d 801; Gramm v State of New York, 28 AD2d 787, affd 21 NY2d 1025). Damiani, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

McArdle v. M & M Farms of New City, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 538, 455 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

90 A.D.2d 538 (McArdle v. M & M Farms of New City, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related