Keys v. Arnold's Meat Food Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keys v. Arnold's Meat Food Products, Inc.

155 A.D.2d 355, 547 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14318

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 355 (Keys v. Arnold's Meat Food Products, 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

Keys v. Arnold's Meat Food Products, Inc., 155 A.D.2d 355, 547 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, [356]*356Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered May 31, 1988, which, in a products liability action, inter alla, denied third-party defendant Utica H. Brisket Corp.’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Trial Term held, and we agree, that the equivocal expert testing laboratory’s report on the offending product, and the appellant’s conclusory denial of supplying such product to the third-party plaintiff, did not provide a sufficient evidentiary showing as to negate the existence of any issues of fact, and to entitle it to summary judgment (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, [356]*356Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered May 31, 1988, which, in a products liability action, inter alla, denied third-party defendant Utica H. Brisket Corp.’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Trial Term held, and we agree, that the equivocal expert testing laboratory’s report on the offending product, and the appellant’s conclusory denial of supplying such product to the third-party plaintiff, did not provide a sufficient evidentiary showing as to negate the existence of any issues of fact, and to entitle it to summary judgment (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 355, 547 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keys-v-arnolds-meat-food-products-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack