Bingham v. Godfrey
| Decision Date | 25 November 1985 |
| Citation | 495 N.Y.S.2d 428,114 A.D.2d 987 |
| Parties | Charles C. BINGHAM, Individually, et al., Respondents, v. Patricia M. GODFREY, Individually, etc., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; The National Super Service Co., Appellant; et al., Defendant; Enter Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Timepiece Cafe, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent (and other titles). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York City (Eric A. Portuguese and Steven B. Prystowsky, of counsel), for appellant.
J.M. Furey & R.J. Furey, Hempstead (Susan B. Williams, of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.
Before GIBBONS, J.P., and EIBER, KUNZEMAN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiffs' decedent, defendant National Super Service Co. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated July 25, 1984, as denied its motion for summary judgment.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, motion granted and complaint and cross claims dismissed as against defendant National Super Service Co.
Appellant is awarded costs payable by third-party defendant Enter Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Timepiece Cafe.
A manufacturer of a product may not be cast in damages, either on a strict products liability or negligence theory, where, after the product leaves the possession and control of the manufacturer, there is a subsequent modification which substantially alters the product and is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440).
Here, plaintiffs' decedent was electrocuted while using a vacuum cleaner manufactured by National Super Service Co. in 1970. In support of its motion for summary judgment, National has established, prima facie, based on experts' affidavits and documentary proof, that the proximate cause of the accident was the subsequent alteration of the machine by a third party (an improper rewiring by changing a three-pronged grounded plug to a two-pronged standard plug and wrapping the grounding and hot wires together). It was then mandatory upon plaintiffs to submit evidentiary facts, by expert affidavit, rebutting the prima facie showing and demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370, 244 N.E.2d 61).
Plaintiffs have failed to present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putnick v. H.M.C. Associates
...United Corp., 126 A.D.2d 624, 511 N.Y.S.2d 61, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 1016, 517 N.Y.S.2d 937, 511 N.E.2d 80 and Bingham v. Godfrey, 114 A.D.2d 987, 495 N.Y.S.2d 428, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 753, 500 N.Y.S.2d 102, 490 N.E.2d 1228, which Chesebro-Whitman and Albany Ladder cite for supp......
-
Ferretti v. Town of Greenburgh
...the existence of an triable issue of fact (see, Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370, 244 N.E.2d 61; Bingham v. Godfrey, 114 A.D.2d 987, 495 N.Y.S.2d 428). The issue concerned a medical diagnosis outside the experience and knowledge of an ordinary layperson. Therefore the p......
-
Powles v. Wean United Corp.
...manufactured or designed (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Bingham v. Godfrey, 114 A.D.2d 987, 988, 495 N.Y.S.2d 428). The plaintiff, however, failed to present any evidentiary proof in support of his contention that it was feasible to desi......
-
Smith v. Town of Brookhaven
...did not supply the evidentiary showing necessary to successfully resist the Town's motion for summary judgment (see, Bingham v. Godfrey, 114 A.D.2d 987, 495 N.Y.S.2d 428). In any event, excerpts of the examination before trial of the third-party defendant Cowdell, which were submitted in su......