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.
Jean C. SPEIRS, appellant, v. DEXTER SHOE CO., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated April 19, 2006, as, in effect, granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Dexter Shoe Co. and Herrill Bowling Corp., d/b/a Herrill Lanes, which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in strict products liability insofar as asserted against them and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendant Pat's Professional Shop.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
On the afternoon of August 7, 2003, the plaintiff, who had 40 years of experience bowling recreationally, slipped and fell while bowling at a facility owned by the defendant, Herrill Bowling Corp., d/b/a Herrill Lanes (hereinafter Herrill Lanes). At that time, the plaintiff was wearing bowling shoes which she had purchased on October 4, 2001, at the defendant Pat's Professional Shop (hereinafter Pat's), a bowling supplies store, which was located on the premises of Herrill Lanes. The shoes had been manufactured by the defendant Dexter Shoe Co. (hereinafter Dexter). Following the occurrence, the plaintiff noticed that part of the sole of the shoe was bent back. At her deposition, she acknowledged that she had worn the subject bowling shoes on approximately 64 occasions prior to the occurrence.
Dexter, Herrill Lanes, and Pat's were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in strict products liability. The evidence submitted by Dexter made out a prima facie case demonstrating that, as a matter of law, the bowling shoe was not defective. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Castro v. Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 309 A.D.2d 827, 828, 766 N.Y.S.2d 65; see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
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: July 17, 2007
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)