Jimenez v. Iron Master Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jimenez v. Iron Master Corp.

292 A.D.2d 426, 738 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2541

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 426 (Jimenez v. Iron Master Corp.) 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

Jimenez v. Iron Master Corp., 292 A.D.2d 426, 738 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated November 8, 2000, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the defendants Stillwell Supply Corp. and Windhem Machine Corp. which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondent Stillwell Supply Corp.

The respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to establish any reasonable probability that the respondents manufactured and distributed the defective product which caused plaintiff’s accident (see, Healey v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 87 NY2d 596; D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 173 AD2d 263). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the respondents’ respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated November 8, 2000, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the defendants Stillwell Supply Corp. and Windhem Machine Corp. which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondent Stillwell Supply Corp.

The respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to establish any reasonable probability that the respondents manufactured and distributed the defective product which caused plaintiff’s accident (see, Healey v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 87 NY2d 596; D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 173 AD2d 263). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the respondents’ respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 426, 738 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-iron-master-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack