Rios v. Minster Machine Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rios v. Minster Machine Co.

243 A.D.2d 399, 664 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10728

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 399 (Rios v. Minster Machine Co.) 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

Rios v. Minster Machine Co., 243 A.D.2d 399, 664 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1997, which granted defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims for negligence and strict products liability for design defect were properly dismissed as against defendant and third-party plaintiff upon the basis of uncontroverted evidence that plaintiffs employer had substantially altered the machine by removing a key safety feature, and that the accident would not have occurred had the machine been left as originally designed and manufactured (see, Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., 49 NY2d 471). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1997, which granted defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims for negligence and strict products liability for design defect were properly dismissed as against defendant and third-party plaintiff upon the basis of uncontroverted evidence that plaintiffs employer had substantially altered the machine by removing a key safety feature, and that the accident would not have occurred had the machine been left as originally designed and manufactured (see, Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., 49 NY2d 471). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 399, 664 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-minster-machine-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack