Torrens v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torrens v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

265 A.D.2d 399, 696 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10222

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 399 (Torrens v. Delta International Machinery Corp.) 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

Torrens v. Delta International Machinery Corp., 265 A.D.2d 399, 696 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a products liability action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated May 29, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict, and the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendant third-party plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, a woodworker, was allegedly injured while using a wood-shaping device manufactured by the defendant third-party plaintiff. He argues on appeal that the court improperly precluded him from offering evidence that, subsequent to the accident, his employer fashioned a safety guard for the device which allegedly would have prevented his injury. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the court properly excluded that evidence, as the defendant third-party plaintiff conceded that such a safety guard could easily have been created (see, Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a products liability action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated May 29, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict, and the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendant third-party plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, a woodworker, was allegedly injured while using a wood-shaping device manufactured by the defendant third-party plaintiff. He argues on appeal that the court improperly precluded him from offering evidence that, subsequent to the accident, his employer fashioned a safety guard for the device which allegedly would have prevented his injury. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the court properly excluded that evidence, as the defendant third-party plaintiff conceded that such a safety guard could easily have been created (see, Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 399, 696 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrens-v-delta-international-machinery-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack