Mastro v. Schenectady County
| Decision Date | 27 March 1980 |
| Citation | 426 N.Y.S.2d 187,74 A.D.2d 976 |
| Parties | Edward A. MASTRO, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SCHENECTADY, Respondent, and City of Schenectady, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nicholas J. Grasso, Schenectady (Michael R. Cuevas, Schenectady, of counsel), for appellant.
Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case & Blackmore, Albany (Diane Bresee, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GREENBLOTT, J. P., and KANE, STALEY, MAIN and MIKOLL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 10, 1979 in Schenectady County, which dismissed the fifth and sixth causes of action set forth in the complaint against defendant County of Schenectady.
Plaintiff, while operating his motor vehicle on Nott Street in the City of Schenectady on July 5, 1977, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle which was exiting from a parking lot owned and maintained by the County of Schenectady. This action was commenced to recover damages for personal injury and property damage sustained by plaintiff as the result of said accident. The fifth and sixth causes of action against the County of Schenectady attempt to allege causes of action in strict products liability. These causes of action are founded upon allegations that the County of Schenectady erected, used, employed and provided a parking area on the north side of Nott Street and negligently, by want of care and omission of duty, failed to regulate, design, erect, maintain, construct or otherwise provide for a method or means of control of traffic in the area of the parking lot and failed to provide a safe and proper method of control of ingress and egress to and from Nott Street and created a dangerous and hazardous condition to the plaintiff as a user of the premises.
Defendant County of Schenectady moved to dismiss these causes of action on the ground that the factual allegations of the complaint establish that plaintiff's causes of action are based on alleged dangerous conditions resulting from negligent acts of commission or omission on the part of defendant County of Schenectady, which form no basis for a cause of action based upon a theory of strict products liability. Special Term agreed and dismissed the fifth and sixth causes of action against the County of Schenectady.
The doctrine of strict products liability is founded upon a breach of warranty or implied warranty of fitness of a product manufactured and sold and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VanIderstine v. Lane Pipe Corp.
...products liability will not lie (see Farina v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 81 A.D.2d 700, 438 N.Y.S.2d 645; Mastro v. County of Schenectady, 74 A.D.2d 976, 426 N.Y.S.2d 187; Yearke v. Zarcone, 57 A.D.2d 457, 462, 395 N.Y.S.2d 322; see, also, restatement, Torts 2d, § 402A and comments c and ......
-
Held v. 7-Eleven Food Store
...489, 398 N.Y.S.2d 882, 368 N.E.2d 1247; Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital, 308 N.Y. 100, 104, 123 N.E.2d 792; Mastro v. County of Schnectady, 74 A.D.2d 976, 426 N.Y.S.2d 187; Sala v. Tomlinson, 73 A.D.2d 724, 725, 422 N.Y.S.2d 506; Gordon v. Holt, 65 A.D.2d 344, 349, 412 N.Y.S.2d 534; see a......
-
Hall v. State
...to maintain emergency facilities or warn of their absence sounds in negligence, not strict liability.Mastro v. County of Schenectady, (Third Department), 74 A.D.2d 976, 426 N.Y.S.2d 187, cited by the defendant, does lend some support to the State's position that strict products liability do......