From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pangallo v. Mitsubishi International Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 23, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Mitsubishi International Corp. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, America, Inc., and the action is severed as to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff suffered injuries as the result of the alleged malfunction of a forklift. He then commenced the instant action to recover damages against four defendants, including Mitsubishi International Corp. (hereinafter MIC), and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, America, Inc. (hereinafter MHIA).

In support of their motion for summary judgment, MIC and MHIA made a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, they submitted (1) deposition testimony and an affidavit from the Corporate Secretary of MHIA which indicated that MHIA did not design, manufacture, import, sell, distribute, or deal in any way with forklifts generally or the subject forklift in particular, and (2) an affidavit to the same effect with respect to MIC from the Executive Vice President of that corporation (see, Porter v. LSB Indus., 192 A.D.2d 205; Smith v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 818).

The plaintiff's opposition to this probative evidence consisted solely of a photograph of a plate affixed to the forklift. The plate reads: "[Defendant] MACHINERY DISTRIBUTION, INC. [hereinafter MDI], a subsidiary of [Defendant] MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORP. [MIC]". Indeed, MIC conceded that it was a minority shareholder in MDI. Nevertheless, MHIA's name is not on the plate at all, and that MDI is named on the plate as a subsidiary of MIC is insufficient, standing alone, to create an issue of fact as to MIC's liability (see, Billy v. Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152, 163; Zwirn v. Bic Corp., 181 A.D.2d 574).

Accordingly, the motion of MHIA and MIC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them must be granted. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pangallo v. Mitsubishi International Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Pangallo v. Mitsubishi International Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH PANGALLO, Respondent, v. MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 23, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 647

Citing Cases

Reese v. Raymond Corp.

On both of Plaintiff's bases for a claim of negligence, Raymond has made a prima facie showing that it is…

Montemarano v. Atl. Express Transp. Grp., Inc.

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary…