Fox v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.
| Citation | 129 A.D.2d 611,514 N.Y.S.2d 107 |
| Parties | Catherine FOX, etc., Respondent, v. WYETH LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1987 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Costello & Shea, New York City (Frederick N. Gaffney and Steven E. Garry, of counsel), for appellants.
Peters, Berger & Koshel, P.C., New York City (Herman Schmertz, on the brief), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BROWN, NIEHOFF and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., and American Home Products Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated November 21, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The proponent of a motion for summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. The failure to make such a showing requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the insufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642; Royal v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 A.D.2d 132, 504 N.Y.S.2d 519; Raia Ind., Inc. v. Young, 124 A.D.2d 722, 508 N.Y.S.2d 228).
In the case at bar, the defendants Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., and American Home Products Corp. established that they provided warnings of the side effects suffered by the infant plaintiff after a DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) inoculation. However, the evidence submitted failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the warnings were adequate. Therefore, a material issue of fact remains, and summary judgment was properly denied (see, Baker v. St. Agnes Hosp., 70 A.D.2d 400, 421 N.Y.S.2d 81; cf. Wolfgruber v. Upjohn Co., 72 A.D.2d 59, 423 N.Y.S.2d 95, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 768, 436 N.Y.S.2d 614, 417 N.E.2d 1002; Eiser v. Feldman, 123 A.D.2d 583, 507 N.Y.S.2d 386).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Johnson Chemical Co., Inc.
...hazard (e.g., Alfieri v. Cabot Corp., supra ), or upon the inclusion of warnings which are insufficient (see, e.g., Fox v. Wyeth Labs., 129 A.D.2d 611, 514 N.Y.S.2d 107). Whether warnings are sufficient to alert the product user to potential hazards is usually, but not always, a question of......
-
Long Island Power Auth. v. Anderson
...N.E.2d 572; Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642; Fox v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 611, 514 N.Y.S.2d 107; Royal v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 A.D.2d 132, 504 N.Y.S.2d 519. The plaintiff has made an adequate prima facie s......
-
Barnaby v. Inc. Village of Sea Cliff
...923 (1986); Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 (1985).; Fox v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 611, 514 N.Y.S.2d 107 (2d Dept. 1987); Royal v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 A.D.2d 132, 504 N.Y.S.2d 519 (2d Dept. 1986). Petitioners/plaintiffs h......
-
D'Anna v. Inc. Village of Hempstead
...v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320 (1986); Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985); Fox v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 611 (1987); Royal v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 A.D.2d 132 (2nd Dept. 1986). Once a movant has shown a prima facie right to summary ......