From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bingham v. Godfrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 1985
114 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 25, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).


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 Enterprise, Inc., doing business as 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., 49 N.Y.2d 471).

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).

Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidentiary proof in support of their contention that (1) it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner or that (2) a defect in the machine existed at the time of manufacture. Plaintiffs rely solely upon the affirmation of their attorney, who was without personal knowledge of the facts. This did not supply the evidentiary showing necessary to successfully resist the summary judgment motion (see, Roche v Hearst Corp., 53 N.Y.2d 767). Gibbons, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bingham v. Godfrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 1985
114 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Bingham v. Godfrey

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES C. BINGHAM, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 25, 1985

Citations

114 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Town of Brookhaven

The plaintiff's opposition to the instant motion for summary judgment took the form of an affirmation of an…

Putnick v. H.M.C. Assocs

In our view, contrary to the assertions of Chesebro-Whitman and Albany Ladder, plaintiffs were not required…