From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carnibucci v. Marlin Firearms Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 4, 1976
51 A.D.2d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

March 4, 1976


Appeals from that part of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 29, 1975 in Albany County, which granted plaintiffs' motion for inspection and discovery and denied appellants' motion for a protective order. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges causes of action in negligence and breach of warranty against the appellants arising out of an accident on November 29, 1967, when it is alleged that a semiautomatic-.22-caliber rifle (manufactured by the Marlin Arms Company and sold to the infant Karl Carnibucci, Jr., by Westons Shoppers City, who had obtained the gun from Harry T. King Wholesale) loaded with .22-caliber long ammunition (manufactured by the Remington Arms Company and sold by Colljack's Sporting Goods Store) misfired and subsequently the cartridge exploded when said infant was inspecting the rifle, causing him to lose his left eye. The appellants limit their appeal to so much of the order of Special Term as compels them to furnish "information relating to claims of a similar nature, whether such claims were made prior or subsequent to the subject action." The appellants primarily contend that the language quoted hereinabove is too vague or too broad and, while the order when considered in the light of Special Term's decision is not seriously lacking in specificity, the plaintiffs concede that the discovery is to be limited to a similar rifle and similar cartridge as were being used by the infant at the time of the accident. In view of that concession, the order should be modified so as to expressly coincide with the intent of the plaintiffs as to discovery of claims of a similar nature and hopefully expedite pretrial discovery. The appellant, Remington Arms Company, contends that subsequent similar claims are not a proper subject of discovery. This contention is precluded by the case of Galieta v Young Men's Christian Assn. of City of Schenectady ( 32 A.D.2d 711, 712) wherein this court held that evidence of similar but subsequent accidents is admissible at trial to establish a defective condition. Special Term's order is not an abuse of discretion insofar as it directs the disclosure of similar claims (Abrams v Vaughan Bushnell Mfg. Co., 37 A.D.2d 833, 834). Order modified, on the law and the facts, by amending the last decretal paragraph thereof so as to provide that the information as to similar claims be claims involving Model 898 M2 semiautomatic-.22-caliber rifles with the same components as contained in the rifle purchased by the infant plaintiff insofar as the Marlin Firearms Company is concerned, and claims involving cartridges manufactured to the same design, specifications and materials as the cartridge referred to in the complaint and which cartridge exploded after a misfire or hang fire when used in a Marlin rifle of the model herein involved insofar as the Remington Arms Company, Inc., is concerned, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P.J., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carnibucci v. Marlin Firearms Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 4, 1976
51 A.D.2d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Carnibucci v. Marlin Firearms Company

Case Details

Full title:KARL L. CARNIBUCCI, SR., Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Winter v. Motel Assoc

The plaintiff is entitled to obtain from the defendants disclosure of information regarding similar incidents…

Valet v. American Motors Incorporated

Interrogatory No. 25 seeks information concerning lawsuits for personal injuries commenced against defendants…