Edmiston v. Tony Rome's, Inc.
Helen M. Edmiston, Individually and as Adminstratrix of the Estate of Claud Edmiston v. Tony Rome's, Inc., and Blue Lantern Lounge
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Although defendant Tony Rome’s, Inc., met its initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form raising an issue of fact whether Tony Rome’s served decedent unwholesome food that caused his fatal illness (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ). Contrary to the contention of Tony Rome’s, the opinion of plaintiffs medical expert concerning the incubation period for decedent’s illness does not constitute a formal judicial admission (see, Richardson, Evidence § 216 [Prince 10th ed]; cf., Russell v Gaines, 209 AD2d 939 ). Plaintiffs other expert, who has a Ph.D. in toxicology, is qualified to render an opinion on the issue of causation (see generally, Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459-462 ), and his opinion was based upon established facts relevant to the controversy (see, Hugelmaier v Town of Sweden, 144 AD2d 934 , lv denied and dismissed 74 NY2d 699 ). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(declining summary judgment in a food poisoning case where plaintiffs expert, a Ph.D. in toxicology, had “presented evidentiary proof in admissible form raising an issue of fact whether [defendant] served decedent unwholesome food that caused his fatal illness”)
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.