Keleman v. Quinton Fitness Equipment, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keleman v. Quinton Fitness Equipment, Inc.

41 A.D.3d 172, 838 N.Y.S.2d 51

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 172 (Keleman v. Quinton Fitness Equipment, Inc.) 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

Keleman v. Quinton Fitness Equipment, Inc., 41 A.D.3d 172, 838 N.Y.S.2d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[173]*173Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered January 16, 2007, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that she fell off a treadmill when it suddenly increased in speed after her hand inadvertently struck the control panel’s acceleration button, and submits an engineer’s opinion that the treadmill was defectively designed in that its acceleration button was located only five inches from the right edge of the control panel where a user might be expected to hold onto the treadmill for balance. However, plaintiff, at her deposition, unequivocally stated that her hands did not touch the speed buttons on the treadmill’s control panel just before the belt unexpectedly speeded up. Given such testimony, neither the alleged design defect, nor any failure to warn against holding onto the edges of the control panel, could have been a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiffs attempt to defeat summary judgment with an affidavit in opposition recharacterizing the plain meaning of her testimony was properly rejected (see Blackmon v Dinstuhl, 27 AD3d 241 [2006]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

[173]*173Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered January 16, 2007, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that she fell off a treadmill when it suddenly increased in speed after her hand inadvertently struck the control panel’s acceleration button, and submits an engineer’s opinion that the treadmill was defectively designed in that its acceleration button was located only five inches from the right edge of the control panel where a user might be expected to hold onto the treadmill for balance. However, plaintiff, at her deposition, unequivocally stated that her hands did not touch the speed buttons on the treadmill’s control panel just before the belt unexpectedly speeded up. Given such testimony, neither the alleged design defect, nor any failure to warn against holding onto the edges of the control panel, could have been a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiffs attempt to defeat summary judgment with an affidavit in opposition recharacterizing the plain meaning of her testimony was properly rejected (see Blackmon v Dinstuhl, 27 AD3d 241 [2006]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 172, 838 N.Y.S.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keleman-v-quinton-fitness-equipment-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack