Villagio v. Mandel Foods, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villagio v. Mandel Foods, Inc.

191 A.D.2d 428, 594 N.Y.S.2d 320

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 428 (Villagio v. Mandel Foods, Inc.) 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

Villagio v. Mandel Foods, Inc., 191 A.D.2d 428, 594 N.Y.S.2d 320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated October 16, 1990, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and any cross claims against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the plaintiffs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., and any cross claims against it are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff Melody Villagio was injured when she fell over a bread rack left in the aisle of a supermarket. We disagree with the Supreme Court that the defendant Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., the baker of the bread, failed to submit sufficient evidentiary proof in admissible form to support its motion for [429]*429summary judgment, as the record discloses an affidavit by a person having knowledge of the material facts (CPLR 3212 [b]). Moreover, the record established that the defendant Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., simply had nothing to do with the delivery of its product to retail stores, and thus, had nothing to do with the placement of the bread racks in the store. Accordingly, the motion is granted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated October 16, 1990, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and any cross claims against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the plaintiffs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., and any cross claims against it are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff Melody Villagio was injured when she fell over a bread rack left in the aisle of a supermarket. We disagree with the Supreme Court that the defendant Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., the baker of the bread, failed to submit sufficient evidentiary proof in admissible form to support its motion for [429]*429summary judgment, as the record discloses an affidavit by a person having knowledge of the material facts (CPLR 3212 [b]). Moreover, the record established that the defendant Stroehmann’s Bakery, Inc., simply had nothing to do with the delivery of its product to retail stores, and thus, had nothing to do with the placement of the bread racks in the store. Accordingly, the motion is granted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 428, 594 N.Y.S.2d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villagio-v-mandel-foods-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack