Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Donna CALANDRA, etc., respondent, v. CRANE PLUMBING, et al., appellants, et al., defendants (and third-party actions).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Crane Plumbing, Fiat Products, and Edwards, Platt & Deely, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 27, 2007, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defective safety glass insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defective safety glass insofar as asserted against them. The appellants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Specifically, the appellants failed to establish that the subject product performed as intended or that there existed a likely cause of the respondent's injuries not attributable to any defect in the design or manufacturing of the product (see Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 100 N.Y.2d 38, 41, 760 N.Y.S.2d 79, 790 N.E.2d 252; Koslow v. Zenith Electronics Corp., 45 A.D.3d 810, 810-811, 845 N.Y.S.2d 748; Taft v. Sports Page Shop, 226 A.D.2d 974, 640 N.Y.S.2d 698). As the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
In light of the above, we decline the request of the defendant Blackman Plumbing Supply Company, Inc., a nonappealing defendant, to search the record and award summary judgment in favor of it.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 02, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)