From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Slater v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2001
280 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

February 7, 2001.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HAYES, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following

Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained when the front wheel on the driver's side of her automobile fell off as she was driving. Plaintiff alleges that the wheel fell off due to a defect in the lug nuts that she allegedly purchased from Sears, Roebuck Co. (defendant) five days before the accident. Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, alleging breach of express warranty. Plaintiff acknowledged at her deposition that no express warranty was made with respect to the lug nuts. The court erred, however, in granting that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, alleging breach of implied warranties. Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that it did not sell the lug nuts to plaintiff ( see, Horn v. Homier Distrib., 272 A.D.2d 909, 910). Further, defendant is not entitled to judgment based upon the unavailability of the lug nuts following the accident ( see, Bauer v. Bashline Indus., 219 A.D.2d 841, 841-842; Abar v Freightliner Corp., 208 A.D.2d 999, 1000; Otis v. Bausch Lomb, 143 A.D.2d 649, 650). The existence and nature of a product defect may be proven circumstantially ( see, Clark v. Globe Bus. Furniture, 237 A.D.2d 846, 847; Otis v. Bausch Lomb, supra, at 650), and the proof submitted by plaintiff raises triable issues of fact whether the lug nuts allegedly sold by defendant were defective, i.e., not "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used" (UCC 2-314 [c]; see, Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248, 258-259, rearg denied 87 N.Y.2d 969). We therefore modify the order by denying the motion in part and reinstating the first cause of action.


Summaries of

Slater v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2001
280 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Slater v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

Case Details

Full title:TRACY SLATER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK CO.…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 203

Citing Cases

Everyday Gr. LLC v. GW Supermarket of N. Blvd.

In the case at bar, defendants have submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact concerning…

Ebenezer Baptist Church v. Little Giant Man

factured by defendants. Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Little Giant Manufacturing Co.,…