JAMES v. (and a third-party Action). (1999)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Wall/Northeast Corp., Atlantic Cordage Corp., and Wall Industries, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated January 9, 1998, as denied the motion of Wall/Northeast Corp. and Atlantic Cordage Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's causes of action to recover damages for strict products liability and implied warranty insofar as asserted against them, and which granted the motion of the defendant Harry Weinstein, Inc., for conditional indemnification against them.

ORDERED that the appeal by Wall Industries, Inc., is dismissed, because it is not aggrieved by the order appealed from;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, with their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's causes of action to recover damages for strict products liability and implied warranty as asserted against the appellants Wall/Northeast Corp. and Atlantic Cordage Corp. is granted, and the motion by the defendant Harry Weinstein, Inc., for conditional indemnification against those appellants is denied;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellants Wall/Northeast Corp. and Atlantic Cordage Corp. are awarded one bill of costs.

There is nothing in the record from which it can be reasonably inferred that the subject product was defective when it left the possession of the manufacturers, the appellants Wall/Northeast Corp. and Atlantic Cordage Corp. Therefore, they were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's causes of action to recover damages for strict products liability and implied warranty insofar as asserted against them (see generally, Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, 66 N.Y.2d 21, 494 N.Y.S.2d 851, 484 N.E.2d 1354;  Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622;  Quvus v. Emeco Indus., 222 A.D.2d 664, 635 N.Y.S.2d 670;  Tardella v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 178 A.D.2d 737, 576 N.Y.S.2d 965).   Therefore, the claim by the defendant Harry Weinstein, Inc., for indemnification against these appellants is no longer viable.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.