From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spallholtz v. Hampton C.F. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 2002
294 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-02299

Argued March 28, 2002.

May 13, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated February 22, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant National Envirotech Group, LLC, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Davidson Cohen, P.C., Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Ira Cooper and Bruce Cohen of counsel), for appellants.

Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Frederick B. Simpson and Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that "liability may not be imposed for breach of warranty or strict products liability upon a party that is outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain" (Joseph v. Yenkin Majestic Paint Corp., 261 A.D.2d 512; see Passaretti v. Aurora Pump Co., 201 A.D.2d 475). It is undisputed that National Envirotech Group, LLC, did not manufacture or sell the subject machine. Further, its isolated act of arranging for a temporary exchange between two companies of the subject machine for another machine and for the shipment of the machine does not make it a distributor or seller for the purposes of imposing liability under theories of strict products liability or breach of warranty (see Sukljian v. Ross Son Co., 69 N.Y.2d 89, 95-96).

With respect to the cause of action to recover damages for negligence, it is well settled that "before a defendant may be held liable for negligence, it must be shown that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff" (Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 782). National Envirotech Group, LLC, owed no duty to the injured plaintiff with respect to the subject machine.

SMITH, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Spallholtz v. Hampton C.F. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 2002
294 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Spallholtz v. Hampton C.F. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL SPALLHOLTZ, et al., appellants, v. HAMPTON C.F. CORP., et al.…

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

Date published: May 13, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 917

Citing Cases

Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Div. 3d Dep't 2014) (holding that defendants "cannot be held liable under" a theory of strict products…

Wallace v. Tri-State Assembly, LLC

Rather, both applied New York law and found that Amazon could not be held liable under the theories of strict…