Perito v. Sunrise Supermarket Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Perito v. Sunrise Supermarket Corp.

33 Misc. 2d 627, 229 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1946

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 33 Misc. 2d 627 (Perito v. Sunrise Supermarket Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perito v. Sunrise Supermarket Corp., 33 Misc. 2d 627, 229 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable to the situation at bar (Robinson v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 184 Misc. 571, affd. 269 App. Div. 977; Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App. Div. 530). However, the charge to the jury on this aspect of the case was wholly inadequate and the refusal to charge that the rule is a presumption which may be overcome by other evidence was erroneous and prejudicial (George Foltis, Inc., v. City of New York, 287 N. Y. 108; Galbraith v. Busch, 267 N. Y. 230). It was also error to dismiss as to defendant Liebmann Breweries, Inc., before defendant Sunrise Supermarket Corp. had an opportunity to adduce any proof in support of its cross complaint.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to defendant Sunrise Supermarket Corp. to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable to the situation at bar (Robinson v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 184 Misc. 571, affd. 269 App. Div. 977; Higgins v. Ruppert, 124 App. Div. 530). However, the charge to the jury on this aspect of the case was wholly inadequate and the refusal to charge that the rule is a presumption which may be overcome by other evidence was erroneous and prejudicial (George Foltis, Inc., v. City of New York, 287 N. Y. 108; Galbraith v. Busch, 267 N. Y. 230). It was also error to dismiss as to defendant Liebmann Breweries, Inc., before defendant Sunrise Supermarket Corp. had an opportunity to adduce any proof in support of its cross complaint.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to defendant Sunrise Supermarket Corp. to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Misc. 2d 627, 229 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perito-v-sunrise-supermarket-corp-nyappterm-1961.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack