Red Apple Supermarkets, Inc. v. Hudson Towers Housing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Red Apple Supermarkets, Inc. v. Hudson Towers Housing Co.

58 A.D.3d 420, 869 N.Y.S.2d 779

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 420 (Red Apple Supermarkets, Inc. v. Hudson Towers Housing 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

Red Apple Supermarkets, Inc. v. Hudson Towers Housing Co., 58 A.D.3d 420, 869 N.Y.S.2d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammer-man, J.H.O.), entered October 4, 2007, directing a jury verdict [421]*421for defendants Hudson Towers, Marina Towers and Gateway Plaza, dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Gristede’s failed to prove the elements necessary for a res ipsa loquitur charge (see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]). There was no evidence that the power outage was of the kind ordinarily resulting from negligence. There was also no proof that the alleged negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ damages.

In directing the verdict, the court gave plaintiffs every favorable inference based on the evidence submitted, but saw no rational basis upon which the jury could have found in their favor (see CPLR 4401; Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence as to what caused the wires to burn, which resulted in a power failure that caused them to sustain damages due to loss of revenue and product.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammer-man, J.H.O.), entered October 4, 2007, directing a jury verdict [421]*421for defendants Hudson Towers, Marina Towers and Gateway Plaza, dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Gristede’s failed to prove the elements necessary for a res ipsa loquitur charge (see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]). There was no evidence that the power outage was of the kind ordinarily resulting from negligence. There was also no proof that the alleged negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ damages.

In directing the verdict, the court gave plaintiffs every favorable inference based on the evidence submitted, but saw no rational basis upon which the jury could have found in their favor (see CPLR 4401; Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence as to what caused the wires to burn, which resulted in a power failure that caused them to sustain damages due to loss of revenue and product.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 420, 869 N.Y.S.2d 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/red-apple-supermarkets-inc-v-hudson-towers-housing-co-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack