Kleinmunz v. Katz
This text of 190 A.D.2d 657 (Kleinmunz v. Katz) 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.
Opinion
— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered August 7, 1990, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case made at the close of the plaintiff’s case, dismissed the complaint and all cross claims.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.
It is well settled that a motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case should be granted if there is no rational process by which a jury could find for a plaintiff and against a defendant upon the evidence presented (see, Gruntz v Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 163 AD2d 564; Blum v Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 NY 241, 245). Viewing the plaintiff’s evidence as to negligence and strict products liability in a light most favorable to her (see, Wragge v Lizza Asphalt Constr. Co., 17 NY2d 313), we find that there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that the defendants had either actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect or that the alleged defect existed at the time the product was sold. Accordingly, the complaint and all cross claims were properly dismissed. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
190 A.D.2d 657, 594 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinmunz-v-katz-nyappdiv-1993.