From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lucey v. Harstedt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1946
270 App. Div. 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Opinion

April 8, 1946.


Action to recover damages for trichinosis suffered by respondent Dorice Lucey as the result of eating fresh pork purchased by her from the retailer, Harstedt, who bought the pork from the appellant, and by her husband, respondent Timothy J. Lucey, for medical expenses and loss of services. Judgment in favor of the respondents reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The record fails to disclose any proof of common-law negligence or any violation of the Agriculture and Markets Law, as amended. ( Blume v. Trunz Pork Stores, 269 App. Div. 1059; Dressler v. Merkel, Inc., 247 App. Div. 300, affd. 272 N.Y. 574.) The findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury are affirmed. Lewis, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lucey v. Harstedt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1946
270 App. Div. 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)
Case details for

Lucey v. Harstedt

Case Details

Full title:DORICE LUCEY et al., Respondents, v. HARRY HARSTEDT, Defendant, and VAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 8, 1946

Citations

270 App. Div. 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)