Case Name: Dorice Lucey et al., Respondents, v. Harry Harstedt, Defendant, and Van Wagenen & Schickhaus Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1946-04-08
Citations: 270 A.D. 900
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dorice Lucey et al., Respondents, v. Harry Harstedt, Defendant, and Van Wagenen & Schickhaus Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 270
Pages: 900–900

Head Matter:
Dorice Lucey et al., Respondents, v. Harry Harstedt, Defendant, and Van Wagenen & Schickhaus Company, Appellant.

Opinion:
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. Trum Pork Stores, 269 App. Div. 1059; Dressier V. Merkel, Inc., 247 App. Div. 300, affd. 272 N. V. 574.) The findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury are affirmed. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.