Louise DiGiulio v. Gran, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------No. 178 SSM 18 Louise DiGiulio, &c., Appellant, v. Gran, Inc., &c., et al., Respondents. (And a third-party action.) Submitted by David S. Gould, for appellant. Submitted by Douglas S. Langholz, for respondents. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Assuming arguendo that General Business Law § 627-a implicitly created a duty for defendants to use the automated - 1 - - 2 - SSM No. 18 external defibrillator (AED) the section required them to provide at their facility, plaintiff cannot recover because she failed to raise a triable issue of fact demonstrating that defendants' or their employees' failure to access the AED was grossly negligent (see General Business Law § 627-a [3]; Public Health Law § 3000a). Defendants also did not breach any common-law duty to render aid to the decedent. Plaintiff's remaining contention lacks merit. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Decided June 14, 2011 - 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
