Vaadi v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.

134 A.D.2d 831, 521 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51002

This text of 134 A.D.2d 831 (Vaadi v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & 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
Vaadi v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 134 A.D.2d 831, 521 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: The infant plaintiff was injured by the explosion of a blasting cap which he found in a box containing a toy racing track that his mother had purchased at a church rummage sale. Plaintiff sued, among others, defendant Sally Badour on the theory that she donated [832]*832the box containing the blasting cap. Special Term erred in denying defendant Badour’s motion for summary judgment. In support of her motion, defendant established that there was no blasting cap in the box that she donated; thus she met her burden establishing that plaintiff has no cause of action. Plaintiff failed to present evidence in admissible form from which a jury could conclude that defendant Badour was responsible for the blasting cap which caused the infant plaintiffs injuries (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Plaintiffs submission of a hearsay affidavit by counsel is insufficient (see, Eddy v Tops Friendly Mkts., 91 AD2d 1203, affd 59 NY2d 692; Poluliah v Fidelity High Income Fund, 102 AD2d 720). Accordingly, defendant Badour’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see, Lomnitz v Town of Woodbury, 81 AD2d 828, 829; Donadío v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 75 AD2d 715; Blake v Gardino, 35 AD2d 1022, affd 29 NY2d 876). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Inglehart, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Eddy v. Tops Friendly Markets
450 N.E.2d 243 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Blake v. Gardino
278 N.E.2d 649 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Blake v. Gardino
35 A.D.2d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Donadio v. Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital, Inc.
75 A.D.2d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Lomnitz v. Town of Woodbury
81 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Eddy v. Tops Friendly Markets
91 A.D.2d 1203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Poluliah v. Fidelity High Income Fund
102 A.D.2d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 A.D.2d 831, 521 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaadi-v-e-i-dupont-de-nemours-co-nyappdiv-1987.