But even if the cold packs are generally safe, summary judgment is inappropriate because there is a genuine dispute as to whether “the specific product that caused the plaintiff's injury was not manufactured as designed.” Berger v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., No. 16-CV-1835 (MKB) (CLP), 2019 WL 1428449, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2019).
First, under New York law, the ‘ordinary purpose' of a motor vehicle is “to enable the purchaser to transport herself upon the streets and highways . . . in a reasonably safe manner.” Jackson, 845 F.Supp.2d at 531 (quoting Enobakhare v. Carpoint, LLC, No. 08-4798, 2011 WL 703920, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011) (citations omitted)); see Berger v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., No. 16-1835, 2019 WL 1428449, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2019). Here, Shaaya alleges that, in November 2018, his vehicle's DPF warning light system instructed him to drive at highway speeds but would not accelerate past nine miles per hour, due to a failed regeneration.