Nastasi v. Hochman

• Decision Date: 30 June 1977
• Citation: 396 N.Y.S.2d 216,58 A.D.2d 564
• Parties: Marie NASTASI, Individually and Aldo A. Nastasi, as Executor of the Estate of Vincent A. Nastasi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Lyda Sylvia Jorgulesco, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Jonel Eugene Jorgulesco, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Neal S. HOCHMAN, Defendant-Respondent, Cessna Aircraft Company, Defendant-Appellant, and International Aviation Services of New York, Inc., et al., Defendants. Neal S. HOCHMAN, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., Third-Party Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 216

396 N.Y.S.2d 216

58 A.D.2d 564

Marie NASTASI, Individually and Aldo A. Nastasi, as Executor

of the Estate of Vincent A. Nastasi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Lyda Sylvia Jorgulesco, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Jonel Eugene Jorgulesco, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Neal S. HOCHMAN, Defendant-Respondent, Cessna Aircraft Company, Defendant-Appellant, and International Aviation Services of New York, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Neal S. HOCHMAN, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC., et al.,

Third-Party Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 30, 1977.

J. Kelner, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

L. Herman, New York City, for defendant-respondent.

M. Zweibel, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before MURPHY, P. J., and KUPFERMAN, EVANS, CAPOZZOLI and LANE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 31, 1977, granting respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as is based upon strict products liability and General Business Law § 251, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

This is an action for wrongful death arising from an aircraft crash in Connecticut on September 18, 1970. The crash took the life of the pilot, Vincent Nastasi, and the passenger, Jonel Jorgulesco. The aircraft had been manufactured by defendant Cessna Aircraft Company.

On May 1, 1969, defendant and third-party plaintiff Hochman purchased the aircraft from International Aviation Industries. The aircraft was leased to International pursuant to a letter agreement dated April 17, 1969. The lease provided, inter alia, that International was required to take reasonable measures to keep the plane airworthy. However, Hochman was permitted to designate the vendors from whom maintenance supplies were purchased. Likewise, upon twenty-four hours' notice, Hochman could demand the use of the aircraft. Either party could terminate the lease upon fifteen days' written notice.

At the request of Hochman, International installed a strobe light system on September 12, 1969. On or about May 14, 1970, International also installed a new power supply unit for the strobe light system. For purposes of Hochman's motion to dismiss the Nastasi complaint, the parties stipulated that the crash was caused by an inflight fire of electrical origin and that the inflight fire was due to the faulty installation of the strobe light system by International. The parties also agreed that, although unpleaded, the complaint contained a cause of action based upon strict products liability in tort. Justice Chimera granted the motion dismissing the causes of action against defendant Hochman based upon strict products liability and Section 251 of the General Business Law.

The first issue presented is whether the Nastasi complaint asserted a valid basis for relief under the theory of strict products liability. To recover upon that theory, a plaintiff must show that the defect in the product was the cause of the injuries sustained. (Jerry v. Borden Co.,45 A.D.2d 344, 349, 358 N.Y.S.2d 426, 432.) Upon the present motion, the...