Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc.
Citation:750 N.E.2d 1097 (N.Y. 2001)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
540 Madison Avenue was a 39-floor high-rise in New York City. One day, a section of wall on the south-facing side of the building collapsed, throwing debris onto large parts of Madison Avenue. Sections of the street were closed for weeks, and several surrounding businesses had to close during the work. One of the surrounding businesses, 532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, was closed for five weeks as a result of the damage.
532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods sued the owner, lessee, and manager of the building for negligence and public nuisance. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed that it was injured economically due to the defendants’ negligence and that the defendants owed a duty to neighboring businesses to keep their building structurally sound. The district court dismissed, stating that the defendants owed no special duty to the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed on the grounds that a duty to protect others where one’s negligence “could be reasonably foreseen” to cause injury. The defendants appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.