Reich v. Graymills Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reich v. Graymills Corp.

198 A.D.2d 759, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11338

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 759 (Reich v. Graymills 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

Reich v. Graymills Corp., 198 A.D.2d 759, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of A.T. Supply, Inc. (A.T. Supply) for summary judgment on its claim for common-law indemnification against defendant Graymills Corporation (Graymills). The record fails to establish, as a matter [760]*760of law, that A.T. Supply’s potential liability for failure to warn, as the seller of an allegedly defective product, arises solely from its relationship to Graymills, the manufacturer (see generally, Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., 69 NY2d 89, 95; Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106-107). Furthermore, failure to warn is essentially a theory of negligence and the drastic remedy of summary judgment is rarely granted (see, Cooley v Carter-Wallace Inc., 102 AD2d 642, 648). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of A.T. Supply, Inc. (A.T. Supply) for summary judgment on its claim for common-law indemnification against defendant Graymills Corporation (Graymills). The record fails to establish, as a matter [760]*760of law, that A.T. Supply’s potential liability for failure to warn, as the seller of an allegedly defective product, arises solely from its relationship to Graymills, the manufacturer (see generally, Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., 69 NY2d 89, 95; Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106-107). Furthermore, failure to warn is essentially a theory of negligence and the drastic remedy of summary judgment is rarely granted (see, Cooley v Carter-Wallace Inc., 102 AD2d 642, 648). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 759, 605 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reich-v-graymills-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack