Cruz v. General Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. General Electric Co.

223 A.D.2d 486, 637 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 555

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 486 (Cruz v. General Electric 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

Cruz v. General Electric Co., 223 A.D.2d 486, 637 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered April 4, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit, material issues of fact exist as to whether the generator at issue, designed and manufactured by defendant, was reasonably safe. The expert engineer opined that relatively inexpensive and more effective safety devices should have been installed on the apparatus which would have prevented the instant accident (see, Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102). We also note that, while plaintiffs’ decedents may have been negligent, it is for the jury to determine whether such negligence was the sole cause of the instant accident (see, Gokey v Castine, 163 AD2d 709, 711). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered April 4, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit, material issues of fact exist as to whether the generator at issue, designed and manufactured by defendant, was reasonably safe. The expert engineer opined that relatively inexpensive and more effective safety devices should have been installed on the apparatus which would have prevented the instant accident (see, Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102). We also note that, while plaintiffs’ decedents may have been negligent, it is for the jury to determine whether such negligence was the sole cause of the instant accident (see, Gokey v Castine, 163 AD2d 709, 711). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 486, 637 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-general-electric-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack