General

Anna Budrow, Appellant, v. Grand Union Company, Respondent

275 A.D.2d 978·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1949·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Anna Budrow, Appellant, v. Grand Union Company, Respondent. [MAJORITY] Heffeman, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur; Deyo, J., dissents, in the following statement, in which Brewster, J., concurs: I dissent. The record fails to disclose that there was any unusual accumulation or in fact any accumulation of oil whatsoever at the spot where the plaintiff fell. There is also a total lack of evidence that the plaintiff slipped on any oil or that oil was the proximate cause of the accident. On such a record the trial court had no alternative but to grant the motion to dismiss. Since we may assume that the plaintiff adduced all of the evidence available to her, a new trial would serve no useful purpose.