Sabella v. Vaccarino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sabella v. Vaccarino

263 A.D.2d 450, 691 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7725

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 450 (Sabella v. Vaccarino) 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

Sabella v. Vaccarino, 263 A.D.2d 450, 691 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a consolidated action to recover damages, inter alia, for medical malpractice and the negligent [451]*451manufacture of a medical device, the defendant Richards Medical Company, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated March 20, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages, inter alia, for the negligent manufacture of a medical device (see, Sabella v Vaccarino, 263 AD2d 451 [decided herewith]). We agree with the Supreme Court that there are issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment to the appellant. The circumstantial evidence of negligent manufacture of the device at issue offered by the plaintiffs was sufficient to defeat the appellant’s summary judgment motion (cf., Otis v Bausch & Lomb, 143 AD2d 649, 650). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a consolidated action to recover damages, inter alia, for medical malpractice and the negligent [451]*451manufacture of a medical device, the defendant Richards Medical Company, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated March 20, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages, inter alia, for the negligent manufacture of a medical device (see, Sabella v Vaccarino, 263 AD2d 451 [decided herewith]). We agree with the Supreme Court that there are issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment to the appellant. The circumstantial evidence of negligent manufacture of the device at issue offered by the plaintiffs was sufficient to defeat the appellant’s summary judgment motion (cf., Otis v Bausch & Lomb, 143 AD2d 649, 650). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 450, 691 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabella-v-vaccarino-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack