Webster v. Supermarkets General Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Webster v. Supermarkets General Corp.

209 A.D.2d 405, 619 N.Y.S.2d 577

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 405 (Webster v. Supermarkets General Corp.) 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

Webster v. Supermarkets General Corp., 209 A.D.2d 405, 619 N.Y.S.2d 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 13, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint does not contain any allegations upon which a viable cause of action may be based (see, Trott v Merit Dept. Store, 106 AD2d 158). The plaintiffs attempt to assert a new cause of action by resort to the bill of particulars is improper (see, Lewis v Village of Deposit, 40 AD2d 730, affd 33 NY2d 532). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 13, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint does not contain any allegations upon which a viable cause of action may be based (see, Trott v Merit Dept. Store, 106 AD2d 158). The plaintiffs attempt to assert a new cause of action by resort to the bill of particulars is improper (see, Lewis v Village of Deposit, 40 AD2d 730, affd 33 NY2d 532). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 405, 619 N.Y.S.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-supermarkets-general-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack