Koslow v. Zenith Electronics Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koslow v. Zenith Electronics Corp.

45 A.D.3d 810, 845 N.Y.S.2d 748

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 810 (Koslow v. Zenith Electronics 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

Koslow v. Zenith Electronics Corp., 45 A.D.3d 810, 845 N.Y.S.2d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages based on strict products liability, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated December 22, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Specifically, the defendant failed to establish that the subject product performed as intended or that there existed a likely cause of the accident not attributable to any defect in [811]*811the design or manufacturing of the product (see Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 100 NY2d 38, 41 [2003]; D’Auguste v Shanty Hollow Corp., 26 AD3d 403, 404-405 [2006]; Milazzo v Premium Tech. Servs. Corp., 7 AD3d 586, 588 [2004]). As the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages based on strict products liability, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated December 22, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Specifically, the defendant failed to establish that the subject product performed as intended or that there existed a likely cause of the accident not attributable to any defect in [811]*811the design or manufacturing of the product (see Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 100 NY2d 38, 41 [2003]; D’Auguste v Shanty Hollow Corp., 26 AD3d 403, 404-405 [2006]; Milazzo v Premium Tech. Servs. Corp., 7 AD3d 586, 588 [2004]). As the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 810, 845 N.Y.S.2d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koslow-v-zenith-electronics-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack