SCHULER v. Don Mowry Flexo, Inc., Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, (2007)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Donald P. SCHULER and Kim Schuler, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. S & S CORRUGATED PAPER MACHINERY CO., et al., Defendants, Don Mowry Flexo, Inc., Defendant-Respondent-Appellant,
Valco Cincinnati, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. Don Mowry Flexo, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Copar Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Decided: March 16, 2007

PRESENT: GORSKI, J.P., MARTOCHE, SMITH, LUNN, AND PINE, JJ.

Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo (Jill L. Yonkers of Counsel), for Petitioners-Appellants-Respondents. Iacono, Cambs and Goergen, Buffalo, Goldberg Segalla LLP (John J. Jablonski of Counsel), for Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. Damon & Morey LLP, Buffalo (Michael J. Willett of Counsel), for Defendant-Respondent. Bouvier Partnership, LLP, Buffalo (Norman E.S. Greene of Counsel), for Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that defendant Valco Cincinnati, Inc. (Valco) established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that its component parts were not defective and did not contribute to the accident involving plaintiff Donald P. Schuler (see e.g. Jones v. W + M Automation, Inc., 31 A.D.3d 1099, 818 N.Y.S.2d 396, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 802, 830 N.Y.S.2d 698, 862 N.E.2d 790; Hothan v. Herman Miller, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 333, 333-334, 742 N.Y.S.2d 104; Ayala v. V & O Press Co., 126 A.D.2d 229, 234-235, 512 N.Y.S.2d 704). Although Valco would periodically make repairs to its component parts on the machine at issue, we conclude that, in the absence of a routine maintenance contract or other ongoing relationship requiring Valco to service the machine, Valco had no duty to inspect the machine or to warn about defects “ ‘unrelated to the problem that it was summoned to correct’ ” (Rutherford v. Signode Corp., 11 A.D.3d 922, 923, 783 N.Y.S.2d 735, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 702, 790 N.Y.S.2d 649, 824 N.E.2d 50; cf. Dauernheim v. Lendlease Cars, 238 A.D.2d 462, 463, 656 N.Y.S.2d 671).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network