Miranda v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miranda v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.

200 A.D.2d 378, 608 N.Y.S.2d 73

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 378 (Miranda v. C. Schmidt & Sons, 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

Miranda v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc., 200 A.D.2d 378, 608 N.Y.S.2d 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered May 27, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to respondents’ contentions, the within appeal is properly before this Court (see, Cohen v Cohen, 3 NY2d 339, 344) and the IAS Court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment since the appellant could not demonstrate as a matter of law its inability to anticipate that its beer keg would be combined with a non-defective bung stopper in a way that created the potential for the bung to be [379]*379explosively ejected. This appears to be "a case where the combination of one sound product with another sound product creates a dangerous condition about which” appellant had a duty to warn (Rastelli v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 NY2d 289, 298).

Appellant’s arguments with respect to warranty and design defect were rendered moot when the respondents withdrew claims based on those theories before the trial verdict, and we do not reach them. We have considered the appellant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered May 27, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to respondents’ contentions, the within appeal is properly before this Court (see, Cohen v Cohen, 3 NY2d 339, 344) and the IAS Court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment since the appellant could not demonstrate as a matter of law its inability to anticipate that its beer keg would be combined with a non-defective bung stopper in a way that created the potential for the bung to be [379]*379explosively ejected. This appears to be "a case where the combination of one sound product with another sound product creates a dangerous condition about which” appellant had a duty to warn (Rastelli v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 NY2d 289, 298).

Appellant’s arguments with respect to warranty and design defect were rendered moot when the respondents withdrew claims based on those theories before the trial verdict, and we do not reach them. We have considered the appellant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 378, 608 N.Y.S.2d 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-c-schmidt-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack