Case ID: ny-2d_59/html/0692-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elmer Eddy et al., Appellants, v Tops Friendly Markets et al., Respondents.
    Decided May 3, 1983
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Peter A. Vinolus for appellant.
    
      
      Paul I. Perlman for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

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.