Evans v. Biro Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evans v. Biro Manufacturing Co.

289 A.D.2d 187, 735 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12841

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 187 (Evans v. Biro 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

Evans v. Biro Manufacturing Co., 289 A.D.2d 187, 735 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered September 28, 2000, which, in a products liability action, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit submitted by defendant’s president in support of the motion, which relies primarily on plaintiffs deposition testimony to show that the product in question was poorly maintained by plaintiffs employer and virtually “falling apart” by the time of the accident, simply does not address the safety of the product as designed, and is otherwise insufficient to shift to plaintiff the burden of coming forward with evidence of design defects (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; compare, Bouter v Durand-Wayland, Inc., 221 AD2d 902). Plaintiff did, however, supply such evidence through the affidavit of an expert witness. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered September 28, 2000, which, in a products liability action, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit submitted by defendant’s president in support of the motion, which relies primarily on plaintiffs deposition testimony to show that the product in question was poorly maintained by plaintiffs employer and virtually “falling apart” by the time of the accident, simply does not address the safety of the product as designed, and is otherwise insufficient to shift to plaintiff the burden of coming forward with evidence of design defects (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; compare, Bouter v Durand-Wayland, Inc., 221 AD2d 902). Plaintiff did, however, supply such evidence through the affidavit of an expert witness. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 187, 735 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-biro-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack