Atkisson v. Manitoba Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atkisson v. Manitoba Corp.

192 A.D.2d 1077, 596 N.Y.S.2d 237

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

DecidedApril 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1077 (Atkisson v. Manitoba Corp.) 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

Atkisson v. Manitoba Corp., 192 A.D.2d 1077, 596 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude that arguably a question of fact exists whether defendant Pine Tree Machinery is a successor corporation to defendant Rigby Machinery, Inc. and therefore strictly liable for plaintiff’s injuries (see, Sweat-land v Park Corp., 181 AD2d 243, 245-246). This issue should be determined at trial rather than by summary disposition (see, Cooney v Osgood Mach., 174 AD2d 1046). Consequently, Supreme Court erred in granting Pine Tree’s motion for summary judgment to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint sought to impose liability on Pine Tree based on successor liability (see generally, Glick & Dolleck v Tri-Pac Export Corp., 22 NY2d 439, 441; Hourigan v McGarry, 106 AD2d 845, 845-846, appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 637). We agree with Supreme Court, however, that Pine Tree did not have an independent duty to warn plaintiff of the defective condition of the machine (see, Sullivan v Joy Mfg. Co., 70 NY2d 806, 808-809). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude that arguably a question of fact exists whether defendant Pine Tree Machinery is a successor corporation to defendant Rigby Machinery, Inc. and therefore strictly liable for plaintiff’s injuries (see, Sweat-land v Park Corp., 181 AD2d 243, 245-246). This issue should be determined at trial rather than by summary disposition (see, Cooney v Osgood Mach., 174 AD2d 1046). Consequently, Supreme Court erred in granting Pine Tree’s motion for summary judgment to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint sought to impose liability on Pine Tree based on successor liability (see generally, Glick & Dolleck v Tri-Pac Export Corp., 22 NY2d 439, 441; Hourigan v McGarry, 106 AD2d 845, 845-846, appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 637). We agree with Supreme Court, however, that Pine Tree did not have an independent duty to warn plaintiff of the defective condition of the machine (see, Sullivan v Joy Mfg. Co., 70 NY2d 806, 808-809). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1077, 596 N.Y.S.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkisson-v-manitoba-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack