Croton Falls Fire District v. Pierce Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Croton Falls Fire District v. Pierce Manufacturing Co.

130 A.D.2d 456, 515 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46425

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

DecidedMay 4, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.2d 456 (Croton Falls Fire District v. Pierce 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

Croton Falls Fire District v. Pierce Manufacturing Co., 130 A.D.2d 456, 515 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for negligence and strict products liability, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), entered January 15, 1986, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to strike the demand for punitive damages, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The complaint alleged, in essence, that a fire truck that the plaintiff had purchased from the defendant was involved in an accident, and was found thereafter to be totally unsafe for operation due to negligence in the manufacturing process and a design defect. These allegations are adequate to state causes of action sounding in negligence and strict products liability (see, Hartford Ins. Group v Curry Chevrolet Sales & Serv., 119 AD2d 546).

However, giving the complaint every favorable inference that could be drawn therefrom (Siegel, NY Prac § 265), it fails to allege any ground upon which to premise an award of punitive damages (see, Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401). Weinstein, J. P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, 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 negligence and strict products liability, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), entered January 15, 1986, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to strike the demand for punitive damages, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The complaint alleged, in essence, that a fire truck that the plaintiff had purchased from the defendant was involved in an accident, and was found thereafter to be totally unsafe for operation due to negligence in the manufacturing process and a design defect. These allegations are adequate to state causes of action sounding in negligence and strict products liability (see, Hartford Ins. Group v Curry Chevrolet Sales & Serv., 119 AD2d 546).

However, giving the complaint every favorable inference that could be drawn therefrom (Siegel, NY Prac § 265), it fails to allege any ground upon which to premise an award of punitive damages (see, Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401). Weinstein, J. P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 456, 515 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croton-falls-fire-district-v-pierce-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack