Sarnoff v. Charles Schad, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Sarnoff v. Charles Schad, Inc.

50 Misc. 2d 418, 270 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1809

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 Misc. 2d 418 (Sarnoff v. Charles Schad, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sarnoff v. Charles Schad, Inc., 50 Misc. 2d 418, 270 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1809 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Murray T. Feiden, J.

This case was originally submitted to the jury against both defendants only on the issue of liability, leaving the amount of damages for determination at a later trial. The jury brought in a verdict against both defendants and by a decision of this court dated April 14, 1966 (49 Misc 2d 1059) the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and dismiss the complaint were denied. Thereafter the ease was submitted to a jury on the issue of damages and on May 10, 1966, the jury brought in a sealed verdict in the sum of $135,000 against both defendants. Both defendants moved to set aside the verdict on all applicable grounds of the CPLB. except inadequacy and also requested this court to reconsider its prior decision with respect to each defendant on the issue of liability. Decision was reserved.

The court has reconsidered its decision with respect to liability and after reconsideration the verdict as against the defendant Charles Schad, Inc., is set aside and the complaint as to said defendant is dismissed on the authority of Campo v. Schofield (301 N. Y. 468); Inman v. Binghamton Housing Auth. (3 N Y 2d 137); Jones v. Klachkin (22 Misc 2d 631, affd. 13 A D 2d 911). It would seem that even where we do not have a remote user situation, a supplier is not liable for a patently dangerous appliance (Jones v. Klachkin, supra).

The motions of the remaining defendant, Associated Church Arts, including the motion to set aside the verdict for excessiveness, are denied.

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

Murray T. Feiden, J.

This case was originally submitted to the jury against both defendants only on the issue of liability, leaving the amount of damages for determination at a later trial. The jury brought in a verdict against both defendants and by a decision of this court dated April 14, 1966 (49 Misc 2d 1059) the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and dismiss the complaint were denied. Thereafter the ease was submitted to a jury on the issue of damages and on May 10, 1966, the jury brought in a sealed verdict in the sum of $135,000 against both defendants. Both defendants moved to set aside the verdict on all applicable grounds of the CPLB. except inadequacy and also requested this court to reconsider its prior decision with respect to each defendant on the issue of liability. Decision was reserved.

The court has reconsidered its decision with respect to liability and after reconsideration the verdict as against the defendant Charles Schad, Inc., is set aside and the complaint as to said defendant is dismissed on the authority of Campo v. Schofield (301 N. Y. 468); Inman v. Binghamton Housing Auth. (3 N Y 2d 137); Jones v. Klachkin (22 Misc 2d 631, affd. 13 A D 2d 911). It would seem that even where we do not have a remote user situation, a supplier is not liable for a patently dangerous appliance (Jones v. Klachkin, supra).

The motions of the remaining defendant, Associated Church Arts, including the motion to set aside the verdict for excessiveness, are denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Misc. 2d 418, 270 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarnoff-v-charles-schad-inc-nysupct-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack