Sherman v. Claire Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherman v. Claire Manufacturing Co.

239 A.D.2d 487, 657 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349

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

DecidedMay 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 487 (Sherman v. Claire Manufacturing 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

Sherman v. Claire Manufacturing Co., 239 A.D.2d 487, 657 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[488]*488The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC § 136 et seq.) expressly preempted State common-law causes of action which seek to recover damages for injuries allegedly arising as a result of inadequate warning labels on a product (see, Warner v American Flouride Corp., 204 AD2d 1, 3, 13). Therefore, dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint was appropriate. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the opinion in Warner v American Flouride Corp. (supra) is not inconsistent with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Medtronic, Inc. v Lohr (518 US 470).

Furthermore, while leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3025 [b]), the decision to grant or deny leave to amend a pleading is within the court’s discretion (see, Mayers v D’Agostino, 58 NY2d 696), and the exercise of such discretion will not be lightly disturbed (see, Beuschel v Malm, 114 AD2d 569). On this record, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

[488]*488The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC § 136 et seq.) expressly preempted State common-law causes of action which seek to recover damages for injuries allegedly arising as a result of inadequate warning labels on a product (see, Warner v American Flouride Corp., 204 AD2d 1, 3, 13). Therefore, dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint was appropriate. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the opinion in Warner v American Flouride Corp. (supra) is not inconsistent with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Medtronic, Inc. v Lohr (518 US 470).

Furthermore, while leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3025 [b]), the decision to grant or deny leave to amend a pleading is within the court’s discretion (see, Mayers v D’Agostino, 58 NY2d 696), and the exercise of such discretion will not be lightly disturbed (see, Beuschel v Malm, 114 AD2d 569). On this record, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 487, 657 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-claire-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack