Salter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

77 A.D.3d 449, 908 N.Y.S.2d 573

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 449 (Salter v. Sears, Roebuck & 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

Salter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 77 A.D.3d 449, 908 N.Y.S.2d 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[450]*450Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered January 8, 2010, which denied the motion of defendants Sears, Roebuck and Icon Health Fitness for a protective order to the extent of directing them to answer interrogatories regarding prior incidents with respect to other treadmills that Icon manufactured and marketed during the period in which it manufactured the subject treadmill, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to limit the scope of the interrogatories to be answered to those regarding prior incidents involving sudden acceleration, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that she was injured as a result of the sudden acceleration of a treadmill manufactured by Icon. Thus, the disclosure she seeks of information about incidents in which other Icon treadmills suddenly accelerated is warranted (see Bertocci v Fiat Motors of N. Am., 76 AD2d 779 [1980]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

[450]*450Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered January 8, 2010, which denied the motion of defendants Sears, Roebuck and Icon Health Fitness for a protective order to the extent of directing them to answer interrogatories regarding prior incidents with respect to other treadmills that Icon manufactured and marketed during the period in which it manufactured the subject treadmill, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to limit the scope of the interrogatories to be answered to those regarding prior incidents involving sudden acceleration, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that she was injured as a result of the sudden acceleration of a treadmill manufactured by Icon. Thus, the disclosure she seeks of information about incidents in which other Icon treadmills suddenly accelerated is warranted (see Bertocci v Fiat Motors of N. Am., 76 AD2d 779 [1980]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 449, 908 N.Y.S.2d 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salter-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack