Mann v. H.W. Andersen Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mann v. H.W. Andersen Products, Inc.

231 A.D.2d 500, 647 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823

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

DecidedSeptember 9, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 500 (Mann v. H.W. Andersen 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

Mann v. H.W. Andersen Products, Inc., 231 A.D.2d 500, 647 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant H.W. Andersen Products, Inc. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated August 22, 1995, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment on the claims based on failure to label and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the cross motion of H.W. Andersen which was to dismiss those causes of action based on failure to label insofar as asserted against it, as those claims are preempted pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 USC § 136v [b]; see, Warner v American Flouride Corp., 204 AD2d 1). We decline to pass on the remaining theories of liability set forth in the complaint as to H.W. Andersen Products as they were not raised by the parties in the Supreme Court. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Hart, 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, etc., the defendant H.W. Andersen Products, Inc. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated August 22, 1995, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment on the claims based on failure to label and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the cross motion of H.W. Andersen which was to dismiss those causes of action based on failure to label insofar as asserted against it, as those claims are preempted pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 USC § 136v [b]; see, Warner v American Flouride Corp., 204 AD2d 1). We decline to pass on the remaining theories of liability set forth in the complaint as to H.W. Andersen Products as they were not raised by the parties in the Supreme Court. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 500, 647 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-hw-andersen-products-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack