Home/New York Court of Appeals/Van Slyke v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Van Slyke v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

457 N.E.2d 780, 60 N.Y.2d 774, 469 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3469
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 20, 1983
DocketAppeal No. 1; Appeals Nos. 2, 3, 4
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 457 N.E.2d 780 (Van Slyke v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Van Slyke v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 457 N.E.2d 780, 60 N.Y.2d 774, 469 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3469 (N.Y. 1983).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On plaintiff’s appeal in appeal No. 1, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff’s design defect cause of action must fail for lack of proof that defendant General Cable Corp. had reason to know of the increased danger by virtue of the operator’s storage of a tool in a particular manner (see Robinson v Reed-Prentice, 49 NY2d 471, 479; Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376, 386).

On plaintiff’s appeals in appeals Nos. 2, 3 and 4, appeals dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that plaintiff is not a party aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Division (CPLR 5511). On defendant General Cable Corp.’s cross appeal in appeal No. 4, cross appeal dismissed, without costs, on the court’s own motion, as academic.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]):

On appeal No. 1, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs.

On appeals Nos. 2, 3 and 4, plaintiff’s appeals dismissed, without costs.

On appeal No. 4, defendant General Cable Corporation’s appeal dismissed, without costs.

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

Related

Aruck v. Xerox Corp.
144 Misc. 2d 367 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
Staples v. Town of Amherst
146 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Yaeger v. New York Telephone Co.
148 A.D.2d 308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Carmody v. ADM Milling Co.
665 F. Supp. 147 (N.D. New York, 1987)
Callovi v. Olympia & York Battery Park Co.
663 F. Supp. 855 (S.D. New York, 1987)
Gregory v. General Electric Co.
131 A.D.2d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Bland v. Manocherian
488 N.E.2d 810 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Smith v. People
113 A.D.2d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Dougherty v. State
113 A.D.2d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Mack v. Altmans Stage Lighting Co.
98 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
457 N.E.2d 780, 60 N.Y.2d 774, 469 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-slyke-v-niagara-mohawk-power-corp-ny-1983.