Barnes v. Pine Tree Machinery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnes v. Pine Tree Machinery

245 A.D.2d 19, 664 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12502

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 19 (Barnes v. Pine Tree Machinery) 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

Barnes v. Pine Tree Machinery, 245 A.D.2d 19, 664 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered April 4, 1997, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that defendant’s limited involvement in facilitating the sale of the allegedly defective machine that caused plaintiffs injury, a one-time situation in which defendant effectively brokered the sale of the machine from a previous owner to plaintiffs employer, imposed no duty upon defendant to make sure the machine was safe or to warn about potential hazards “that [were] not obvious or readily discernible” (Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., 69 NY2d 89, 97). Plaintiffs own deposition testimony established that he not only knew through experience of the danger of using the machine in the manner he did, but that such danger was indeed obvious (see, Czerniejewski v Steward-Glapat Corp., 236 AD2d 795; Schiller v National Presto Indus., 225 AD2d 1053). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered April 4, 1997, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that defendant’s limited involvement in facilitating the sale of the allegedly defective machine that caused plaintiffs injury, a one-time situation in which defendant effectively brokered the sale of the machine from a previous owner to plaintiffs employer, imposed no duty upon defendant to make sure the machine was safe or to warn about potential hazards “that [were] not obvious or readily discernible” (Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., 69 NY2d 89, 97). Plaintiffs own deposition testimony established that he not only knew through experience of the danger of using the machine in the manner he did, but that such danger was indeed obvious (see, Czerniejewski v Steward-Glapat Corp., 236 AD2d 795; Schiller v National Presto Indus., 225 AD2d 1053). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 19, 664 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-pine-tree-machinery-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack