Fagan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fagan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

97 A.D.2d 979, 468 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20827

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 979 (Fagan v. Sears Roebuck & 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

Fagan v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 97 A.D.2d 979, 468 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Sears Roebuck & Co. (Sears) and Acme Electric Corp. Defendant Globe Union, Inc., appeals from the same order dismissing Globe’s cross claim against Acme and Sears. Trial Term erroneously granted summary judgment to Sears and Acme. Questions of fact exist as to whether the failure to warn or adequately instruct was given and, if so, was it the proximate cause of the resulting explosion (Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55; Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, affd 52 NY2d 768). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Sears Roebuck & Co. (Sears) and Acme Electric Corp. Defendant Globe Union, Inc., appeals from the same order dismissing Globe’s cross claim against Acme and Sears. Trial Term erroneously granted summary judgment to Sears and Acme. Questions of fact exist as to whether the failure to warn or adequately instruct was given and, if so, was it the proximate cause of the resulting explosion (Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55; Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, affd 52 NY2d 768). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 979, 468 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fagan-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack