Eddy v. Tops Friendly Markets

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 59 N.Y.2d 692, 463 N.Y.S.2d 437, 450 N.E.2d 243, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3066

Decision Date: 5/3/1983

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Eddy v. Tops Friendly Markets, 59 N.Y.2d 692, 463 N.Y.S.2d 437, 450 N.E.2d 243, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3066 (1983)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1983


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 64 decisions
64
Citing decisions
1
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

11
44
7
1
1
1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.59
E.D.N.Y.1
N.D.N.Y.1
N.Y.1
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty.1
S.D.N.Y.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2024Scaltrito v. Mazzarisi N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty.
  • 2016Hernandez v. Conway Stores, Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2009Luthringer v. Luthringer N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2006Finger v. Cortese N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2002Mineker v. White N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2001Lekocevic v. Linder N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2000Allstate Insurance v. Keil N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2000Nearchou v. Broadway Mall Properties, Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2000Autry v. Children's Hospital N.Y. App. Div.
  • 1999Moorman v. Huntington Hospital N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 1 case
  • Madrid v. City of New York

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Elmer Eddy et al., Appellants, v Tops Friendly Markets et al., Respondents.

Attorneys

  • APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
  • Peter A. Vinolus for appellant.
  • Paul I. Perlman for respondent.
majority

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (91 AD2d 1203; see, also, Madrid v City of New York, 42 NY2d 1039; and 1 NY PJI2d 274-275).

We do not reach and have not considered appellant’s argument, raised for the first time before us, that notice is not an element of an action against a self-service supermarket with respect to a fall caused by material in the aisle (see Ann., 85 ALR3d 1000).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.