From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fox v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1987
129 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 13, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. The failure to make such a showing requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the insufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851; Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 A.D.2d 132; Raia Indus. v Young, 124 A.D.2d 722).

In the case at bar, the defendants Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., and American Home Products Corp. established that they provided warnings of the side effects suffered by the infant plaintiff after a DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) inoculation. However, the evidence submitted failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the warnings were adequate. Therefore, a material issue of fact remains, and summary judgment was properly denied (see, Baker v St. Agnes Hosp., 70 A.D.2d 400; cf., Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 A.D.2d 59, affd 52 N.Y.2d 768; Eiser v Feldman, 123 A.D.2d 388). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fox v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1987
129 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Fox v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CATHERINE FOX, Respondent, v. WYETH LABORATORIES, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 13, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Yemini v. Goldberg

Aprima facie showing of a right to judgment is required before summary judgment can be granted to a movant.…

Yelin v. American Dental Center

tion Corp. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 172 A.D.2d 658; Hantz v. Fishman, 155 A.D.2d 415). The party…