Armijo v. George A. Mitchell Co.
This text of 53 A.D.3d 516 (Armijo v. George A. Mitchell 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated March 28, 2007, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which asserted causes of action based on strict products liability and negligence. The defendant manufacturer failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not design or manufacture an unreasonably dangerous product or that the purchaser’s post-manufacture modifications to the product rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and thereby divested it of any potential liability (see Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232 [1998]). Accordingly, the defen[517]*517dant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the adequacy of the plaintiffs opposing papers.
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Covello, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 A.D.3d 516, 863 N.Y.S.2d 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armijo-v-george-a-mitchell-co-nyappdiv-2008.