Anunziato v. Kar Grabber Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anunziato v. Kar Grabber Manufacturing Co.

298 A.D.2d 476, 748 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9986

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 21, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 476 (Anunziato v. Kar Grabber Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anunziato v. Kar Grabber Manufacturing Co., 298 A.D.2d 476, 748 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, West- . Chester County (Coppola, J.), entered July 25, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[477]*477Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as asserted causes of action sounding in products liability, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff Thomas Anunziato (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly was injured when one end of an automobile frame-straightening machine fell and struck his foot while it was being installed in his auto body shop. The plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against the defendant manufacturer alleging, inter alia, negligence in the delivery and installation of the machine and causes of action sounding in products liability, including an allegation that a locking mechanism that should have prevented the fall was defectively designed. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We modify.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed so much of the complaint as alleged negligence in the delivery and installation of the machine, as the defendant proffered evidence that those allegations were litigated and determined against the plaintiffs in a prior action and that relitigation of the claims was barred by collateral estoppel (see Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285).

However, the defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action sounding in products liability. The defendant’s contention that those causes of action do not lie as a matter of law because the alleged injuries occurred during the installation process is without merit (see generally Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532; Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330; Gadayeva v Dan’s Supreme Supermarkets, 286 AD2d 415). Ritter, J.P., Altman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, West- . Chester County (Coppola, J.), entered July 25, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[477]*477Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as asserted causes of action sounding in products liability, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff Thomas Anunziato (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly was injured when one end of an automobile frame-straightening machine fell and struck his foot while it was being installed in his auto body shop. The plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against the defendant manufacturer alleging, inter alia, negligence in the delivery and installation of the machine and causes of action sounding in products liability, including an allegation that a locking mechanism that should have prevented the fall was defectively designed. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We modify.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed so much of the complaint as alleged negligence in the delivery and installation of the machine, as the defendant proffered evidence that those allegations were litigated and determined against the plaintiffs in a prior action and that relitigation of the claims was barred by collateral estoppel (see Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285).

However, the defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action sounding in products liability. The defendant’s contention that those causes of action do not lie as a matter of law because the alleged injuries occurred during the installation process is without merit (see generally Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532; Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330; Gadayeva v Dan’s Supreme Supermarkets, 286 AD2d 415). Ritter, J.P., Altman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 476, 748 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anunziato-v-kar-grabber-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack