De France v. Oestrike
| Decision Date | 18 May 1959 |
| Citation | 187 N.Y.S.2d 186,8 A.D.2d 735 |
| Parties | Frank DE FRANCE, Respondent, v. Richard W. OESTRIKE, d/b/a Rock Ledge Market, Appellant, and Matthew Pine, d/b/a Chester Club Beverage Company, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Effron & Goldberg, Poughkeepsie, for appellant, Milton M. Haven, Poughkeepsie, on the brief, Alexander Goldberg, Poughkeepsie, of counsel.
Roy L. Featherstone, Poughkeepsie, for respondent.
Before WENZEL, Acting P. J., and MURPHY, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal from so much of an order as granted summary judgment striking out the denials contained in the answer with respect to the second cause of action alleged in the complaint. In that cause of action respondent sought to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a breach of an implied warranty of the fitness of food sold for human consumption.
Respondent claimed that he became ill because of the presence of a dead frog in bottle of soda, purchased at appellant's store and from which respondent drank. The motion for summary judgment was based upon affidavits by respondent, respondent's doctor, and appellant's employee who sold the soda to respondent. The respondent's motion was granted by the Special Term apparently because appellant in his opposing papers was unable to submit any facts controverting respondent's claim.
Order insofar as appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied.
A motion for summary judgment should not be granted 'If the facts upon which the motion is predicated are exclusively within the knowledge of the moving party or clearly not within the knowledge of the opponent' (Tripp, A Guide to Motion Practice, § 95, subd. 6, p. 280; Suslensky v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Misc. 624, 43 N.Y.S.2d 144, affirmed 267 App.Div. 812, 46 N.Y.S.2d 888; Universal Major Elec. Appliances v. Rudisco, Inc., 3 A.D.2d 687, 159 N.Y.S.2d 250; Segal v. National City Bank of N. Y., 269 App.Div. 986, 58 N.Y.S.2d 261).
We do not pass upon the applicability of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, as it read at the time this motion was made and decided, to this type of action. See, however, rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, as amended effective March 1, 1959 (7 A.D.2d i).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huber v. Huber
...defendant was served in the Florida proceeding. Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126, 72 S.Ct. 157, 96 L.Ed. 146. The rule of De France v. Oestrike, 8 A.D.2d 735, 187 N.Y.S.2d 186, does not apply since the facts with respect to the due process aspects of the validity of the Florida decree are either ......
-
Unger v. Travel Arrangements, Inc.
...favor of the defendant may not therefore be granted as to this part of plaintiff's claim, upon the defense thereto. (De France v. Oestrike, 8 A.D.2d 735, 187 N.Y.S.2d 186; Verity v. Peoples State Bank of Baldwin, 1 A.D.2d 833, 148 N.Y.S.2d 333; Matter of Emerson, 22 Misc.2d 950, 955, 194 N.......
-
Hennessy v. City of N.Y., 307847/09.
...of the moving party (Franklin National Bank of Long Island v. De Giacomo, 20 A.D.2d 797, 297 [2d Dept 1964] ; De France v. Oestrike, 8 A.D.2d 735, 735–736 [2d Dept 1959] ; Blue Bird Coach Lines, Inc. v. 107 Delaware Avenue, N.V., Inc, 125 A.D.2d 971, 971 [4th Dept 1986] ). However, when the......
-
Varone v. Calarco
...by common law proof, subject to cross-examination. Newman v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 281 App.Div. 852, 119 N.Y.S.2d 73; DeFrance v. Oestrike, 8 A.D.2d 735, 187 N.Y.S.2d 186. I feel that the examination before trial of the plaintiff procured by satisfied this requirement. Franklin Nat'l Bank o......