Duarte v. Mesta Painting Corp.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1997
• Citation: 235 A.D.2d 273,652 N.Y.S.2d 517
• Parties: William DUARTE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MESTA PAINTING CORP., et al., Defendants, and Graco Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 517

652 N.Y.S.2d 517

235 A.D.2d 273

William DUARTE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MESTA PAINTING CORP., et al., Defendants, and Graco Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department.

Jan. 16, 1997.

Jonathan S. Gould, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Bradley J. Ayers, for Defendants-Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 24, 1996, which, in a products liability action, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendants-appellants manufacturer and seller for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether the accident-causing, lost paint gun supplied to plaintiff by the contractor was manufactured and sold by appellants (see, Healey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 87 N.Y.2d 596, 601-602, 640 N.Y.S.2d 860, 663 N.E.2d 901 citing, inter alia, Taylor v. General Battery Corp., 183 A.D.2d 990, 583 N.Y.S.2d 325), and whether the accident was due to a product defect (see, McDermott v. City of New York, 50 N.Y.2d 211, 220-221, 428 N.Y.S.2d 643, 406 N.E.2d 460; Mitchell v. Maguire Co., 151 A.D.2d 355, 542 N.Y.S.2d 603). Defendants have failed to establish either of those facts to warrant summary judgment in their favor.

ELLERIN, J.P., and WALLACH, NARDELLI, TOM and MAZZARELLI, JJ., concur.