Granados v Balemaster2017 NY Slip Op 32426(U)

October 10, 2017Supreme Court, Suffolk County

Docket Number: 12-14982Judge: Joseph Farneti

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY SlipOp 30001(U), are republished from various state and

local government websites. These include the New YorkState Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the

Bronx County Clerk's office.This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.

SHORT FORM OR!WR r DEX No. ---"-'12"-"-~14~9~82~_ CJ\L No. 13-013670T

SUPREME COURT - STJ\TE Of 1EW YORK l.A.S. PART 37 - Sl.iFfOLK COUNTY

PRESENT:

llon. JOSEPfl F ARNETT Acting Justice Supreme Court

---------------------------------------------------------------X

JULIO C. GRANADOS,

Plaintiff,

- against -

BALEMASTER, a division of EAST CHICAGO MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION, "JOHN DOE" MArNTENANCE COMPANY, and CLARE ROSE, INC.

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------)(

BALEMASTER, a division of EAST CHICAGO MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

- against -

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE RECYCLING, LNC. and CLARE ROSE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. ,

Third-Party Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------){

MOTION DA TE 10-20-16 (004) MOTION DATE 12-1- l 6 (005) ADJ. DATE 4-13-17 Mot. Seq. # 004 - MG Mot. Seq. # 005 - MD

KEEGAN & KEEGJ\ , ROSS & ROSNER Attorney for Plaintiff 147 N. Ocean Avenue Patchogue, New York 11 772

WHITE and WILLIAMS LLP Attorney for DefendantsfThird-Party Plaintiff Bal em aster One Penn Plaza, Suite 4110 New York, New York 101 19

HAMMILL, O 'BRIEN, CROUTIER, DEMPSEY, PENDER & KOEHLER, P.C. Attorney for Third-Party Defendant Environmental Resource Recycling, Inc. 6851 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 250 Syosset, New York 11 791

O'CONNOR, O 'CONNOR, HINTZ, & DEVENEY, LLP Attorney for Third-Party Defendant Clare Rose One Huntington Quadrangle, Suite 3CO l Melville, New York 11747

Upon the following papers numbered I to 93 read on these motions for summarv iudwent : Notice of Motion and supporting papers I - 4 7 61 - 86 : Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 48 - 55 87 - 89 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 56 - 60, 90 - 91 ; Other 92 - 93 ; it is,

[* 1]

(iranado-., \ nale111:i....1cr ln~k\ .\.o. I ..!-1 41/IL

Pagl' ~

ORDl:Rl:D th;11th.:11wli1i1 (-.,1.·q . ==004) h~ dcknd;lllt nalc111a:-.t1.T. and the nnti111l hcq .:IJl\5J h: 1kli:nda111 third- 1'~trt: dl'lt:11da111 ("Ian: Ro-.,1:. ln1.: .. <tl'l' cnnsnlid,tll'd liir pmpns..: .... 11 1 this d..:tc.:rmination : and 11 j..,

ORl>l:"R/:'/) that 1!11.· motHH" h:-. dl'lc.:ndi11ll Balcma'itcr fi>r sum11wr: .iudgmc.:nt di...,rrn->sing th1.· COlllplitilll. th1.• l.'Ollll lcrdailll. illld an: CnlS'i-\.:laims agai11st it is gntnkd: ,llld it is l"urthcr

ORDERl::D that the rnotior h: tldi.:11dan1 't!1ird-pan: dckndant Clan: Rose.:. Int:. l(1r sumniar: judgmc.:111 dismis .... in)!. th1.: complaint against it is dc11i1.·d.

l'laintiff .lulio ( ·. (iranado" con11nc1H.:cd this action Lo n:cO\ cr damages l(ir injuri1.:s he.: allcµcdl: '\UStainc<l on Sqncmhcr 27. :.o 11. whcn the.: hydral1lic card hoard compacwr'haler he \\as sen·icin11 acli\at1.'d and '>C\ c.:1ul his legs. 1111.' haler in qucstion. modd numher 427)(i-I 0. \\ctS manufaclllrcd b) ddi:ndant Bak111.1si....·r. a di\ ision or Last Chicago Machine fool Corpllratiun c-·Balemasld.). Plaimi ff asserts claims against Buknwster liH' ncgligcm:c in its pro<luct ·s dl..!sign. rnanufal'.lun:. sak. inspection. de.: livery. packaging. \\arninµ. strict products liability. and hrcach pf warranty. Bakmaster lilcd a third­p:irty complaint aga ll'>l hn ironmcntal Rl'.sourcc Recycling. Inc .. and Clare Rose. Inc .. l(H·

inuemnitication l)r LOntrihution. 1 ~·wironrnental lt.~source Rec) cling. Inc. r·ERR I .. ). in turn. filed a counterclaim against Balcmas11.·r for indemnification or contrihution. Clare Rose. Im:. r·cJarc Rose .. ) as-;c.:ned three cn,ss-claims against third-party dcfi.:ndunt l·: RRI. as well as u counterclaim against Bakmaster.

Balenwster no\\ mm cs for -;ummary judgment in its li.1vor on the grounds that it played no role.: in the bakr's maintenance. that no manufacturing or design delci:t was present. that plaintiff caused bis own accident hy Jisregarding the warning lahds on its product. and that the product was substantially n1lKlificJ h) plaintirl~s cmplo)cr atlcr it left Balemastcr's possession. In support. it submits. among ot' lcr things. copies or the pleadings: transcripts ol the parties. dcrositinn lcstimon): transcripts or the deposit inn testimony or nonpartics Samul'I Casoria . .luan Rodriguez . .lohn O'Sulli\ an. Daniel J\cer. Patrick Costanzo. Susan Cataldo. and Ci:sar Rivera: l\,1,·o diagrams: antl a copy or a ccrtilicd pl)lice "lick! n:porl.

( 'l.trc Rose also mm·es for summary judgm1.:nt in its favor as to the.: complaints against it. arguing ~h~;! c·!~1;·~ !{c:;~ ~!\\t.. .. ! n~; dt:!:, ! (~ j')l:_:i:~!!!'f. !n ~·u rr< 'rt ('ri1 ~~ !~1eti''n. '"lan: !?"'C c...:qh1ni1-.: nn1nn~ ofht'r

tlrngs. copies of the pkadings and transcripts of irultiple \\ itnesscs' deposition testimony.

PlnintilT1c-.;tificd that on the date in qucsti<' ll. he \\<.IS employed l1y LRRI. \\hidi is 0''n1.:d h> Mark R()Sl' mid Rieb· Rose . \\ho a ls\I O\vl1 Clare Rl1se. Plaintiff -.;tatcd that he bcuan '"orki1112. ror l·:RRI . ~ ~

in 1991. that hc lirsi encountered the.: hydraulic car<lhoard haler in question at FRRl's Patchogue facility. and that the hakr \\ ts mo,·ed lo I· RR I's Ill:\\ locat on in I ast Yaphank -;hortly ht'for1.' his 20 I I accident. PLtintil'l'iPdicall.'d 1hat hi'i \\ork d111i1.•-.; at both l·RRI locations included 1>1Krating three larµc machines: o!'c that handled aluminum. nnc th.;11 handled plastic. and one that handled cardboard. l :pon ql.cstioning. plaint i IT testi lied th al Frank Pere.:/ and .Juan Rndriguc::t. ho th employcc" o l'l ·: RR I. "1.·rl.! rcspon.,ihk !'nr maintaining tho->1.' Prnchincs.

[* 2]

( iranado" ' I ktkmastcr lmk:-; \ , (1. I::- i-i-'JX~

\\ ith lq.!:1rd lll lhl..' C.:, tl'd ho,tr•J hakr ill ljll~''>lillll . pbi nliff l\:'\llfiL•d hl' had ll'PrL· t!Jan '>L'\1.'ll )L''11''> Of

L'Xpni1..·11n: 01k·ra!ing it. and 1lt:11 it \\1Hdd autom:Hic.:all: turn ihdl olT\\hc.:n ih lrathpan.:nt ··1\:i:d c.:huh:·· doot \\:t'- lljh:11c.:d Piaimif'I 1c.: .... 11iinl 1h:11 rn1 tilt: d.ilt.: 111' !Ill' itt'>l<t11t .tl''-idi:;H. tlt1..· '.tkr"..., dlhil" \\,l:-. ,1j.ir

\\hL·n h1..· arri\t:d at th1..· st:c.:nc.: l ' pon qul'stinnmµ. plai111 iff ad111i11c.:d h..: ''"" a\\:ll'L' the.: hakr ··-;omi:ti1nt:s"" rcrnaincd lll1L~ l'alin11al v,i!h it s kl'd C.:llllll' dOPf' ort:n. J k i11d il':th:d th:ll hc \\ilS ll<ll JK'rlllilh.:d 111 llll'll that machinl' off. th:ll ht.: has tlc..'\L'I turned that mad1inc.: olf and that lllll) ;\lr. J>t.:rc1 .md !\Ir. [{~1dri µul'1 \\cr1..· authnri1t.:d to Jo so.

Pia inti IT tcsti lied that in the momt.:nt~ pn:c.:t:J ing hi s ac.:c.:idrnt. hl' ~" itchl'd off the.: on:rheaJ c.:on\ eym hl·lt that routim:J: droppt.:d carJboard into lhl' haler. plm:l'd a hlack plastic milk crate.: on lht: floor ht:nc.::ith tht: hakr"s opc.:n ked chute door. us1.:d the milk t:ratl' 10 gain tht: height nl..'cc.:ssary for him tn c.:limb into !ht: kcJ chute doll!'. and cntcr1..·d thl: bakr''i main c.:hmnhl'r. Plaintiff staled that he look no ac.:tion lo di-;ahk lhl' hakr itsd r. erront.:ou!:>I) hd11.:\ ing. 1hm l\ 1r. Pera had shut thl: hakr off prior 10 him ~ntcring thl' li:eJ ...:hut<.: door. Suhst:qut:nt lo ht.:ing shom1 photographs of tht: hakr. plain ti ff tt:sl ilied that he "didn '1 pa! allt.:Illion I to the '" arning lahcls !" and "_just vvantl cd I tn go straight and do tht: _joh.'" Plaintiff stated that he intcmkd to t:ntcr the bakr to rcmo,·c somc haling wire that had hccnmc jammed inside. I le stakd that this ""as a common maint~'1wncl: procedure. one that his supl.'rvisor. Mr. l'l:r'\.:z. \\·ould dt) in tarn.km '"ith a st:cond workl:r. Plaintiff indicated. ho\\'l:\'CL that on this particular ot:casion. lC took it upon himsel r LO pl'rfonn the maintenance on his 0\\'11. I le testi lied hl-' told Mr. Pcrl:Z that he

"was going to gel insidl-' I the baler 1:· to \\'hi ch ~ f r. Pcrci' rep! ied --) cs... Plaintiff slated that he sa\\ the haler's li.:t:d chute door was already open and. to him. that signaled that the baler was dt:activated. I k inclicall'J that hl' wou!J not haw t:ntt.:re<l thc bakr if he had knov.n it was still ruwcn:d up. but that Mr. Pcrci'. was ··1hree to four meters from I him 1:· and "too for aVvay·· to summon him lo dcadivat.e thl' hakr.

Plaintiff testilied that he had entered the haler on appro"\imalcl) four prior occasions without incident. but th...1t on those occasions he \\'atchcd Mr. Perez shut off the power to the haler first. I k stated he decided to enter the baler alone on this occasion and once inside. the baler hccamc active and :O.l:VCl"i.!d his lq!!:>.

l'red Pert:/ tcstilicd that he is an emplo~et: or LRRI. and that he was pluintilrs dirl:ct supervisor c.'l Lhc 1iml: of the su~ject incident Mr. Pere/ testilicd that the baler in question had been in :-;t:r\'icc at ERRI since Ft:hruary of 200-L and that the "limit S\\ itch·- for the feed chute door had hccn disahlcd by !:in'! :!t 1.1!· n~~:!· !l1l: !i!nt' ,,fit~ ipi!iu l ;1cqu!~i1i"n Mr Pcr<'i' indi c:.ll ('d 1h:11 11 nnltt'1Td the ICt:d chute door limi t S\.\'ilch \\OUld disabll' tht: haler when the recd chute door \\.US opened. I il' explained that till.' limit switch ·s clfrcl \ \US to force an 1-:l~RI cmployel' w walk around the haler and rc-start it folltming t:ach <'Cl:asioll the door \ \(l<; opcnl.'d. which se,·crcl) shl\\c<l thc processing orcardhnar<l. Mr. l'l're11es1ilit:d that. at so1111.: point. hi:-. st1pl'I'\ i:-.or. Samud Casor.a. asked him \\hat could he done to increase production. i\,lr. Perez stated he C"\plained lo Mr. Casoria that the teed drntc <loor"s limit S\.\·itd1 rnuld he disabled. oh,·iming tht: nl.'ed l(I rc-swn lhl: machine each time the door \\as opened. I le indit:atl.'d that \.1r. C;hnria then direc1ed him lo disahk til t: Ii mil S\\ itt:h.

v1r. Perl'/ ll'Slilil:d that U~Rl's rn1ployees. induding plaintiff. \\'Cl'C full) <l\\Url' that lhl' recJ chute Jonr"s limi t S\\·itch had hel'n disabled and that the bukr \\Ould rt:main a<.:ti\ ah.:<l <ll:spilc lhl: li.:ed ellllle door hc.:ing open. Mr. J>erl:i' i11dicalcd that appro.,imah: I) 11.:11 1in1t.:s l'<tch ~l'ar it \\a ..... ni.:t:l'SSi.11'~ for

[* 3]

( ir:111ados \ l~uk111:hlc.:r

l1i-kx 0.o. 12- l 4lJX~ Pq!L' -l

1.·111plo:c.:c.:s lo rn1..:r 1h1.· h:1kr. 1hmu!-! IJ ils k1.·d chttlc.: door. 10 r..:1110\ c.: jam1111.·d ha ling. \\ire.:. I k ..::-..pl.1i11..:d 1h.11on 1hosc.: <1cc:1o..;io11s. prn101.·pl rcquirc.:d l\\u c.:mplP;. ec.:s lo he.: pr1.·o..;c.:111. ~md r'nr !he.: hakr lll he.: ··lodc.:d ot 1 ·and ··wg.g..:d 1111L.·· t1K':111ing. 1ila1 ail po\\c..:r 10 1hc.: 111~1d1i11c..: '"h c.:111 \!1 . Pc.:rL'/ •c.::-tiiic.:d 11!.n th1.· l\\11

1.·mpln: L'L''> tash·d \\ i Iii -..111..:h hakr mai n1L'n.111c1.· \\ LTC.: hi m-..1.·I L .tlld L'ithL'I" .I ua11 I krnamk1 ur plai 111i rr.

I lilnr: Raab . .Jr. lc.:stilied he.: is' it.:c.:-prc.:sidc.:111of'1 :n:-.t1.'rn Chit.:aµn !'vhtchinc.: I 0<11 ( ·urpnration c-· .. asll'rn··). a manufacturer orimlu-;trial bakrs and slm:ddc.:rs. and thal hc.: has \York1.·d for h1s11.·rn since.: l(1(1lJ . ~lr. lbah indkatc.:d that h1sh.:m makl.·sapproximatel;. ISOJifli..·n.:111 moddsol°halc.:rs. \ar:ing in size.: and t.:apacit: . 1 lc.: stalL'<l that Bak master is a di ' is ion or I ~aslL-rn and that i 1 doc.:s nol install thc.: hale.: rs i L nanu l~1ctur1.·s but. instead. L'.ond uc.:ts an i nspc.:ct ion and setup or sudt a nHt<.:hi nc.: suhsc.:quent to its i 11stal lal ion hy a pun:liasc.:r.

Rc..:garding the.: subject haler. Mr. Raah tc.:sti ic.:d that it had a limit!'>\\ itch on its ti.!cd chute.: Joor. and that such a switdt \\as a stamlard L'.nmponcnt 1' 11 all halc.:rs ! ~astern sold ··1 flrnm hasically day one:· I k explained that 1he hakr in question was designed in the.: c.:arl) 1980s. but is an evolution of a design going. hack to the i<J50s. Mr. Raab indicated that the limit switch installc.:<l on l·:ustcrn·s balers has been the -;arm· rnodd. .;upplied hy 1hc.: -;amc manufacturer. since.: the 1980s: that the limi , S\\ itch cosb hc.:twecn $50 and $I 00: and that he.: is unm\are or any complaints or limit switch malfunctions from customers. llpon questioning. Mr. Raab lestilicd that the.: on ly rcwmn the.: limit swit<.:h would 1101 func tion would he i r it ~.as physi<.:all; damaged. or if someone purposely disabkd it. Mr. Raab furthc.:r testi tied that Bakmast<:r '"as una\\ are of any nwdi lications its customers \\.Cre maf..ing. to its balers. and that he.: h<.L<;

ne\°l.~r heard of anyone disabling tlwir haler"s limit .;witch. I k opined that had the limit s"·itch hcc.:n orc.:rationL.tf, plaintilrs ac<.:idc.:nt COtilJ not ha\'C.: ~lCCUrrcd.

t\ party mm ing for summary judgment must make a 1wimaji1cie showing or entitlement to jwJgment as a matter of law. tendering surficic11t e\·idcncc lO demonstrate the absence or any material issues or facl (Nom ura Asset Capital Corp. 1• Cadwaladert 1'~ icken'/tam & Taft LLP. 26 NY3d 40. 19 NYS'.)d 488 120 I 51: A ll'arez v Prospect Hosp . . <>8 NY2d :no. 508 YS2d 923 119861). l r the moving party produces the requisite e\·idencc. the burden then shi !ls to the nonmoYing part~ to establish thc c.:xistcnce or material issues or fact which require a trial or the action (Nomura. SU/WCI: \"('(' ulso Ve:::a ,. Re.w mi Con.'itr. Corp .. 18 Y3d 499. 9-l2 Y. "2d U 120 I 2 j). Mere conclusions or unsuhstantiated allegations an:: insul'li<.:icnt tn raise.: a triable issue (Daliemlo ,, Jolm.wm. 147/\D2d31 2. 5-lJ NYS2d 987

the nonmm·ing part~ (Nomura. \llfll"ll: we· ul.w Orti -;, ,. Vt1rsi~r Holdi11g.\" /,LC. I 8 NY.lJ 335. 339. 937 ~YS2d 157 I 20 I 1 IJ.

1\ manufot..:tun.:r \\hO plac.:es a dd~cli\·e product into the slrcalll uf' L'.Oll111H.!rL'.C.: lllH) be.: liable for in_ uric-; or damagc.:o..; caused by such product (Gebo ,, Black Clawso11 . 92 1 Y'.!<l 387. 392. (18 I YS2d 22 1 11998 j: Liriano 1· llohart Corp .. 92 \!Y2d 2:r:~. 235. (,77 '\ YS:::!d 76-l I 19981: . 1matulli 1· Delhi Comlr. Corp .. 77 \.\"'\I-) "] -) 512. "'()9 \;Y<..;..,d 11711991 p. lkpl!nding upnn 1hc 1(1ctual circuni...t:ittce-... a persun in_iured h: :l tkli.:ctivc produ<.:l 111il) maintain <.:auscs or action under thl' tltc.:nrics or strict prnducts I iabilit). ncgligc.:nce or breach of"' arranty I see Voss 1• Black & Decker 1i ((;.:. Co .. 59 Y::!d Ir~. -l61 ~YS2d 198 I 1983 p. Wh.:thc.:r an action 1s pleaded in strict products liabil it). ncgligl·ncc.:. or hr:ach ol \\arran t). pla111tiff has thc burden nl l'Slahlishing that a tkli.:ct in the produ<.:t \\as a suhstantiai

[* 4]

( ir:mado~ \ Bakma~t...:r

imi..:' "'-< '. i 2- i ..fw12 p~ g..: 5

fol..'.hir in ..: au:--in~ th..: injur:. and th;ll the d..:ki:t L'\ 1..;1...:d al th..: ti1111..· tlh.' prndui:t kit th..: m~urnfru.:tur..:r nr ot!i...:r ..:11\it) in th: lhain (11' di~Lriht . 1 i o 11 l·h.:i11g "\llL'd ('<'<' Clarke ,. llele11e Curtis, Inc .. _2t)\ 1\1)2d 71J I . .,,., , .'" . . ., !'' -1"' '1 ' """('.., ! ... Ill R 'R\' I· ·-t· '').._,..,, ., --.. ,, ·v~ l'> ' -1 ' !1 ' H_ " I:-,_( , _ _ ) _,, )L'j)l _\/ ,_ . 1 llrt (:' (I \ ' .I . "11\CO. I / n . \ J • ti I ' ' . . " l o "\ ·" -·' '('." .'l JL•pl

I JC> 11: 't'<' al\(} Rohi11.w111 ,. Reed-Pnmtice f>fr. t~f Pacltage .llac/1. Co .. 4') \. Y2d 4 71. -C6 NYS.2d 717 j J lJ81J I: I>icki11.w11 1· l>owlm 1111I.\ , Inc.. 2<' I . \f)2d 701. MN \. YS2d 548 I 1d I kpt j. /r dc'11ied t) _l Y 2d 815. (197 YS~d 5h3 11 <)l)l) I).

l nd...:r the.: d11c1rine ol' ~trict produl..'.l~ liabil 1 t~ . a manufoi:tun:r ol a tkki:ti\..: product is li:ihk to any 1x·rso11 injur..:d nr danwgc.:d if the tkli:ct \\as a ..;uh-.;tantial liu.:tor in t:aus ing the in_iuJ) or damaµ...:s. pnivid..:d:

( I ) that al thl· time of the t1ccu1TCllt.:l' th..: product is hcing used ... fo r the purrose and in the mann..:r normal!~ intenJc<l. (2) that irthc person injured nr Jamage<l is himselflor hcrsdfl thi.: user of the product he Im she! \\Oulu not hy the c:-:en.:isc of reasonahk can.: han: h<lth dist:()\cred the Jdcct anJ pcn:ein:d its danger. and (.:l) that h~ thc ..:xen.:isc or rea:-onahk car..: the person i niurcd or JrnmH.!.ed ''mild not othc.rv.-is..: ha\'l.' m crtcd I his or her J injur~ (lr damages

(( 'odli11g ,, Paglia. 32 NY2<l :no. 142. 345 :-.JYS2J 461 1197.:l J: sc!e A matulli ' ' J)eflli C<mstr. Corp. , s11prn). ··A product has a ddi.:ct that renders the manufoctur~r liable for the n:sul ting injuries if it: ( I ) contains a manufac turing flaw: (2) is Jcfel.:l i n~ly designed: or{)) is not nccompunic<l by adequate wurning~ for the us-.: of the pro<lw.:L .. (Matter of NY Cio· Asbesw ... · Litig .. 27 1 Y3d 765. 37 NYS3d 723 I ]0 I (1 I): Spru11g ,, ,..,/TR Rm·e11shurg. 99 . Y'J..d 468. 4 72. 758 NYS'J..d 271 120031: (iebo v Black Clawson Co .. supra al 392. (18 l YS2d 221: Liriano l' llobart Corp ... \llfJrtl at 2:17. 677 ?\YS'J..d 764: Vo . ..-. ..- 1• Black & Decker .tiff:. Co .. ,·u1>ru at 106-107. 463 rys2<l 398).

A ddcctivdy designed product is one in whid1. al the time it leaves the st:lkr"s hands. is in :1

t:t111dition not r..:asonahly contemplated by the ulti111ntc consumer and is unreasonably thmgcrous for its intended use (Robi11so11 ' ' Reed-Pre111ice Dh1 .. supra al 479: see Voss,. Black & Decker !vlfg. Co . . ,.,..,,ru: Bombara ''Roger . ..- Bros. Corp .. 'J..~<) A l>2d 356. 734 ·ys:2d 617 j'J..d Dept 2001 J>. Stated dilkrentl: .. a <ldecti,·e product is one ""hose u1ilit~ docs not oul\\.eigh the danger inherent in its !rH!.~'duc!!"!' !11!" !h: ~ ,!.L':\111 "f cn!~'1!11!.'.!"t:L' !Rohi11rn11 "R!'ed-Prentice !>fr .. ,.,t/".!' :1! J.7(> : ' £'!' l>e1•!1y •· Ford Motor Co .. 87 \:Y2d 248. 639 ·ys2d .250I1995 j: l 'oss l ' Black & Decker Mfg. Co .. supra). In <.ktcnnining. ,,-hdhl'r a plaintiff has made th is slH)\\ ing ... certain risk-utility foctors must he considered"" (f 'a.wlas ' ' Bobrnt ,~lNell' }'ork. Jue .. 150 f\ 1)3d 147. 153. 5:1 NYS3d (ii 12d Dept 20l7j). The ri:-.k- tni li ty foctors that mu:o>t be considcr..:d arc:

I ii( I

'I) t!11..· product'" utility to till' public as a\\ !wk: e) its utili t ~ LO tllL' indi' idual user: c 'l \the likelihood t mt the product \\ill cause injury: c-t l thc arnilahilit~ ora sar~.-r design: (5) th<: possibilit~ ofdcsignint. and lll ~lll llf~tcturing the product so that i. is safer: (6) the deg.rec nf':l\\arcness or thc potrntial danger that can bi: attribut..:d to the injured user: and {7 ) the manufacturcr"s ahili1: w spr('ad thL' rns1 or sakty-rdatcd dc~ ig11 t:h~1n!;l.'S

[* 5]

( irnnadns ' Bakrnas L'r inck\ l) . i.2-i -+•1x:: Pa~c <1

\ 111:1mtlactlll\.T ma~ also h1.: lidd liahk rpr till' foilun.' t11 ''arn nl till' lato.:11t dallt'LTS resultinµ lrnrn the ltll'L'"ec:ahk LISI..''\ 1>f' it:-. prnd11c1 \\hi ch it ~Ill..'\\ ur should lul\·c l\11l1\\ 11 ( \L'<' l.iria110 1· /lohart Corp . . '"/•rr1: Ra\11!1/i 1· (ioo<~reftr Tirt! & Ruhba Co .. 7q '\ Y:d : l\lJ. :'IC \:Y~:d 173 j jt1'>:.1i. Li.iliilit: 111.i.'

hl' lllpllSl..'l! hasl'd 0111.:ilhl'I the L'lllllpkk: li1iJt.rL' Ill \\am ol :t p<.rticular ha/.ard or th,: indusioll or '' ~1rni ng.:-. that :m· ' nadc:qu:ite ( '<'<' /)iJlura 1· ( 'ity <~f .· llha11y. 2:\9 ,\ 1 >2d 828. <15 7 ~ YS2d 844 I 'd 1 kpt I <N7 j: ./olrn.wm 1· ./01111.wm Chem. Co . . 18:; f\1)2d (1-4 . 588 YS2d (107 I 2d lkpl 1 <J92 I). I lo\\L'\ l..'r. a manu l~1ctun:r has no duly to "am pmduct llSL'rs or t.langers that are llh,·ious. readi I: discernahk or app1rent ('<'t' .\/artino 1•S111/iw111 '.\· ofLiher~r. 282 1\D2d 505. 722 l\YS2d ~rn...i j2d lkpt 2001 I: Pi.!tlill1•e11to 1• 1)·/er /:'quip. Corp .. 248 J\D2d 840. 669 :\YS2d 747 l:ld lkptj. Ii· cli.,111i .,.wd i111u11·1. dC'Jiil'd i111,w·1 92 \ Y2d 8(>8. (>77 YS2d 773 11 <>98 1: Lonixro 1· 11>C /:"lees .. 215 J\D.2d 53-+. <127 ;\; YS2d (>C)) I 2d Dept 19951). rhe duty lO \,\.Uri) or a speci lie hazard also doi:s not arisl..' i r the inj un:d pcr.;on. through common !\no" ledge or e.'\pericnce. already is aware of such hazard (sec Warlilwm\·ki ' ' Burger King. 9 /\l >3d 160. 780 YS2d 608 I 2d 1 kpt 200-+ I: Pa_1w! 1· QuaWr J\'o:.-;,le Co .. 227 1\ D2d 60.~ . Cl·ll NYS2d C12> 12d Dept 19W>I. fr denied 89 'Y2d 802. 653 NYS2d 27911 <>Wlj: flanks 1• 1l--/a/..ita. l 1.S.A .. 12<1 /\D2d 659. <>41NYS2d875 l2J Dept 19%1).

Failure to \\<I ·n liahility i" in<cnscl~ fact-spccifi1.:. in\'oh ing. issues such as the oh\'iousness of the ris~. the knm\·lcd~c of the prouuct user. and pro.'\ imatc cause ( Liria 110 ' ' llobart Corp .. . rnpro at 243: see Brat~I' ,, Dunlop Tire Corp .. 275 /\D2d 50>. 711 NYS2d 633 I 3d Dept 2000J : Rof?en 1· Sears. Roebuck & Co .. 268 /\D1d 145. 701 '.'JYS1d 359 j 1st Dt.:pt 1000 j) . . e\·erthclcss. a court can decide as a mal!cr or la\\ that there \\US no <luty lO \\'arn or that the duty was discharged (S<'l' Pas.mute I' Axway Co11.rnmer Prods .. 19"T /\D2d ~n 1. 741 NYS1d 614 14th Dept 20011. up/JC!ul dismi.ued 98 · y~<l 728. 749 'YS2d -+78 120021: l)ias " Marriott 11111 .. 2:)1 /\D::!d 367. 674 NYS1d 78 12d Depl 1998 J: Sc:ltiller v National Presto lnd11s .. supra: Jackso11 v Bomag Gmbll, 225 J\D2d 879, 638 NYS2J 819 I Jd Dept 199(11. fr tlem<'c/88 l\Y1d 805, 646 YS2d 985 [1996j: Oza 1'Sim1tra. 176 t\D1d 916. 575 YS1d 540 j2d Dept 19lll p. /\':' v;ith u cl.1im of design d-=foct. a plaintiff alleging liabilit) based nn a failure to wurn must l!stahlish that the manufacturer had a duty to \\arn and that the failure to warn ·was a substantial cuusc of the eVL'nt whi<.:h rroduct.:d the injuries (Se<' Banks I ' 1l1akita, U.S.A .. s11pru: Bill.'lhorrow I ' Dow ('Item.,

177 /\D1d 7. 579 YS2d 728 l2d Dept 1991 j).

I he primary issue in relation to defendant Balcmastl..'r is whether the limit S\\ itch on the haler's ll:c.J chute door was ddeetively designed because it allegedly was susceptible to being disabled by users. !t !s ~~~:!nn~~!!i~ ~!~a! ~1 :r1~:~t:!~1rtt:r~r \'.·heh~~~ d~si~!1cd nnd trodu~ed :1 s:1 f~~ r'!"')duc!. ··,4. i!J nn! be P·•hl ... ~ !~\r

injuric" resulting from suhstantial alterations or modifications of' the product hy a thi rd part:-- \\'hich render thL' product dl'l'ecti \'L' or othcrn ise unsali.: .. ( H0<H'er 1· Ne iv l/olla11d, Inc .. 23 ' Y 3d 4 I. :'-4. 988 1\'i S2d )-4.l ! 201 -4 I. quoting. r1matul/i 1• Del/ti Ctmstr. Corp .. v111mr at :'32). Material a ltcratit)ns h\ a third part) .. v, hich , . ..,ur~ a substantial chang.c: in tile cundition in\\ hich the pr~lJuc! ~\.as Stlld by destroying. tht.: functional utility of'a l\ey saf't.:t) lealurC. hO\\'e\\:r foreseeable that mndilicalion 111<1) ha\·c hccn. :ire 11 ll "ithin the ambit (lr a manufacturc1"" r~spon-;ihilit~ ·· (1l1ac/..11ey ,, Ford Motor Co .. 251 \ IY\I .,98 ~<)9. (l 71 0- Y<..;2d 718 I 1d I kpt 1998 1 ). 1\ manul~icturcr' s dut: ··docs not c:.'\knd to dcsi gning

a rroduct that is imp1>ssibk to abuse o r one \\ hose safety reaturcs ma) not be cin.:Ulll \'Clll<.:d I or t(l i nc·.>rporati ng I sa kty f(:atures into ih product so as :o guarantee that no harm \\ i 11 come to L'Ycr: user nn matier 110\\ carl'lcss or l.'\ en rc<.:~kss· · ( Rohinwm 1• Reed-Prentice Dil'. of Package .lfaclt. Co .. rn;m1 al

-4Xll-4X I J.

[* 6]

< iranados \ Bak:11as11.:r llllk'\ ."\.ll. 1...:-1 4·1~ .:::

P;1gl..' 7

I kTI..'. l~a k111: 1s1L·r 1.•...,t:1hlishcd a ;1n11w f({c/t· c:1..,l' l' I l'lllitkmc111 tn '.--l.l llllll ~1r;. judgment ( ,.t't '

Ciorhatm· 1· ,\/atj(1r <iroup. I ~ h . \I Xhl 7-15 . . ~ <1 ~ Y S 'd tC ! 2d I kpl 20 I (1 j: /1001·er 1· \'ew / lo/la11d, Inc . . '"fJ/'ll. i ·ero.H 1· . lli/\l(hi~lti Caterpillar ForJ..l(p . Im .. /n(' .. I .2-+ . \!) ;.i 1 _: ' '). I '\ Y\ 'd 5Xli l· ~tl1 II~ pl

~0151: :llagadt1111• Interlake f>acJ..agi11g Corp .. -L~ . \D~d <i)<J. 8-1"' '\ Y~2d-l-l ~ 1:t1lkpt 20071: Hrodhecl.. \'.·llha11y Int'/ Corp .. 2l)] ·\D2d (ilJ\ . 7-1 7 r-.... YS2d 513 J2d Dl..''1t 21102 1: .l/11cA11ey 1· Forti .llotor Co .. . \11/Jl'll: \t '<' ,!!.<'ll<'ru/11 .·lfrlln":. 1· PrO\pt.!t 'f //oo;p .. 'Ii/Wet) . Hakma:-.h.:r nh:t its initial bun.kn h: prcsl..'nt111g L'\ itkn.<.:c 1ha1 th~: hakr \\as not ddi.:i.: i\\.~ ;it lh1.' timl..' it kn thl' 1:u..:tor: . that the bakr·.., sakt~ kature' ''l..'rc not c.ksigncd to he disahkd. that till.' hakt"..., sakt~ dl..',·ir..:c \\,IS suh-..equcntl~ disabkd h: th1.· fHtrt:hasl..'r. that it \\UrnL'd usL'rs 01. potcntial dangers throuµh the USL' nf'prominl..'nt \\arning siir..:kcrs llll the suhjccl baler. and that i l inc I mkd an instruction nia11u:1I "hic:h spn: i lical ly \\':trncd ;1gainsl disahl i ng the baler' s irnil swi tch (S<'c' Uria110 •· lloh11rt Corp .. \'11/11'<1). Mr. Raab. as h1slern·s 'ic:l..'-prl..'sident. tr..:stili1.·d that he is Ulli.I\\ an.: nf' ;111;. prior i nj urics rdatcd ltl till' Ii 111 it s\\'i td1 ( ,·ec• (irr:.:i 1• Ci~1· t~f Nell' J'ork. 8-1 J\ I) ]d 8 71 . 923 "- Y S2d I 70 I 2d I kpl 20 I l Jl. Balcmaster ha\ i ng est ab Ii ..,hcd a pri11111 fi 1cie case. the hurJcn shilled to »pposing panics to raise a triahk i-.;suc ( \<'l' genentlf\' J ·~ga 1· Re.\·ta11i Co11.\·tr. Corp . . \ /1 / J/'cl).

In l>pposiuon to Bakmaste1_.s m~Hion. plaintiff submits his m~n aflidm·it. an alfaJa,·it of l:ric I kibcrg.. P.E.. a t:npy of OSI IA "informal cnnti.:n:m:c: notes: · and unsworn statements hy Frank Pt.:rc1. amud Casoria. and Juan RlKlrigua. In his anidavit. plaintiff stales he "bclic\'cd the machine was off

and that it could not turn on bl..'cause the f'ct:d chute door was open .. and that "laJlthough the limit switch .i.as so1rn:times bypasst.:d to ulltnA employees lo load cardboard through the chute door. no onl..' was doing that at this time at:cordingly !sic I lhcl had no reason to suspect that said switch \\as hypasscJ ·whcn lht.:I entered the machine ...

Erit: I kiherg supplies an affidavit on hdMI r of plaint iff. stating that he is a registered professional engineer in the State or 'cw York and that he has over thirty (10) years of experience. I le avers he wndut:tr..:d an inspection or the sul~jcct baler. revit.:wcd various photographs, read the applicahk deposition h:stimony rl..'lated to the instant mattt.:r. and dralicd a report. Mr. l lcibcrg opines "It lhe manufoc.:turt.:r l~1ilcd to design the subject baikr I sic I'' ith a sakr and still cost ertccli\ I.' limit S\\.itch \\hich could not bl.' easily ddcateJ:· anu that such failure "is a direct violation of the standards sl..'t forth h;. thl..' 'ational Institution for Occupational Safct) and I lcalth Standard with rcspc<.:t to product g.iarding ... I k fw1hcr opines that if thl..'rc "had been a func:tioning limit switch on the !Ced drnt1.· door

Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue as to Balcnrnster's liahilit~ untkr a theor~ of dcsi¥n dd'ect r '<'c' Rohi11so11 ,. Reerl-Pre11tice Dil• .. supra: see ,'.!.<'ll<'re1/~1 · Almrez 1· Pro.~pect Jlo.~p •. SUJJW ). Plai nti 11-s rdia11cc..: on the ( ·ourt 111' Appeals· dc<.:isiun in lloi>w.!I' 1· New llollaml, Inc .. . \lff>l'U. is misplaced. The: ('nun of Appeals distinguished thl! l~\t:IS or that matter l'rom thos~ in Robi11.wm I' Reetl-Prentice Dii• .. 'lf/'1'£1. stating the: ddenuant in Ho01•er ··did not modi I:' thl' I machine I in order to rin.:u1rncnt thl' u1ili1: • !'tk ..;hil'ld ilr Jn :tdapt till' lmar..:hin...:! tn '>Uil hi' <)\\11 nl..'t.:ds. Rather. !the machine <l\\llcr! n.:1rnncd the shield hcr..:ause its l'unctional utilit) ha<l alrl..'ad) been dcstro!cd" (J/om·er 1· 1\'ew llolland, Inc .. rn;wa at 57 linll'rnal quotations and citations omit1edj). I kre, plaintiffs employer purposcf'ull ;. disahkd the hakr·s li.:t.:d d1utc door limit s\\itd1. Plaintiff did no1 suhmit C\idcncc that the haler's limit s\\it<.:h \\ot1ld tail alkr rr..:pL·at...:d use. as thl..' safety <k' ire in lloover did . Nnr diJ plain ti ff addur..:c: e\ idc..:nc...: rai:-ing a11

iSSlll.! urwhdhcr the hakr's limit S\Yit<.:h was designed lo he t.:asily disabled (SC'C' /vfasief/o l' f,_fficiell(J l»<1 l'icn. Inc .. r) /\l)~d f)72. 77(, . y1..;2d ~7X 12d P t•p1 ~1Hl4l· Wyda 1• 1\!fakito f:/ef'. H'ork\· ,i, t\ l)~d

[* 7]

( irnnadns ' Bakrna:-.IL'r l lldL'\ \u. 1.~ - I ·l'JX:•

Pal-!~: x

-H'7. h-18 '\ YS.2d 1 ·q l~d l>L'pl llJ1><1!1. I 11l1h· !h1.· tahk "a" 111 For.Hell1· l.ema. l !JI \f)ld X07. ll'.f1

\!Y~2d 1 17 ( 2d DL"pl 21l 12 ). tlh: r\.' j, nu c.;\ id1.'lll'l' that thL' hakr \\a:-. tksiµ1wd t(1 I u111.·1it111 in 1!11.· ithse11c1..· nl ii...." 1J i.:t; ti1.'\ it:t: . l urtiiLT. 1111i if-i.: thi.: 111;11 .. liinL' in i itle111i11 1· C.(;. lfrelling. ,\fig .. Co .. :7g \i )~d ..:'.Iii. 717 '\ YS2J 2X I 2d I kpl .21JlHJJ till' hak:· did lllll 1\:q11ir1.· -r -;ak1; tk\ i1.·1.· hl' r1..'Ph1\ 1.·d ill -...l'n tt:L' it I \1't'

1tl\C1 Rim 1· Rodll'e/l /111/. Corp .. 2h8 .\D2d 27 >. 701 :'\ Y~2d 38<1I1:-.t D..:pt 2(J(Hljl . \\ hik \I r. I kiht:r!! dir1..·cb the Court · s altc.:ntion to other. al k g1.·dl: _-.,;ifi.:r. ··i11krloc.:k :.-,\\ itL:hc.:s." he.: dn1.•:-. not rl'llTL'llL'e an: nth1.•r hakr that u-;es -.,uL:h a S \\ itc.:h. \ior doi.:s \Ir. I kibl·rµ stall.' .. " ith ;my sp<.:1.:i licit;. that sm:h ··-.;ali.:r .. S \\ i1d11.·s are till· i11d11...ir: standard. Plaintiff altcmpts to a">sign manut:1cturc.:rs of" industrial mad1ines the.: d111: ll) dc.:sign th1:ir 111ac.:hinL"s '' ith sakt; d1.'\ in:s that cannot he.: casil; dc.:katc.:d. I lm\C.:\ c.:r. plaintiff foils to cite an: kgal authorit> supp01ting the l':-.i'>lt'lH.:L' orsw.:h a dut.:. Whik ··it nw: hl' tim:sl'cahk thnt an L'lllp ln) LT \\ill abuse.: a prodtH.:110 llll'l't its 0\\11 sl'lf- i111posc.:d productinn nl'c.:<ls. rc.:sponsihilit>· for that '' i 11 till d10ic.:e ma> nut fal I on thl' manufacturer .. ( Rohi11.w11 1• Reed-Prentice J>fr. of PackaJ(l! Mach. Co .. ·'"/>rt1 <it ...J80 ).

J\s tti his 1~1ilurl' t<1 \'-Ul'll c.:laims. plaint iff also foils to raise a triable issul'. In his artida,·it. Mr. I kihc.:rg states that Bakmaste1"s warning labels \\ere in' iti!ation of.\ . Sf standard -.,. hl'causc.: th1.') taikd 10 sp1.•t:il~ the type of'in_iur~ that could occur if the \\arninµs arc not heeded. llcl\\C\Cr. at his deposition. plaintiff stated that hl' had U">t:d the baler in question for approximate!~ seven )Cars. It is dear. therefor<.:. that further warnings would not have.: given plaiPtiff all) grt:alcr kno\\'kd!?e ofth1.· obvious dangers inqilved in working with thl' hakr than he already had acquired through his l)\\ 11 oh->c.:1Yations and expc:riem.:e (.'L'<' (;u;,:i 1• Ci~r of New York . '"J>rn: Neri 1• Jo/111 Deere Co .. 211 D2cJ 915. 621 1 YS2d ?.?.7 13d Dept 199.5 j). Plaintiff \\'as fully a\\'an.'. based upon his cxperic:nce and training. that the.: hakr <:OU Id inflict the.: typl' of injur> hl.! exp1:ric.:m:cd. l'hc:rcfon..:. Hll) warning ··v.ould lut\ l' bt:l'll superfluous" ( We.\p 1• Carl Zei.\·s, Inc . . 11 J\1)3d 965. 968. 781 NYS'2d .. iJ<) 14th Dept '20041 : see Terwilliger 1• Max Co .• Ltd .. 137 AD1d 1699. 28 'YS3d 5071-hh Dept '20 1(>1 : lleimhuch "Grumman Corp . . 511\l)3cJ 8(>5. 858 NYS::'.d .'l78 !2d Dept 20081). Plaintitrs expert also failed 10 assert those.: A ·s1 standards ··represented the genc:ral custom or usage in the industry" (Fema11des 1· Lawrence. I 0 AD'.id 382. 38..+. 780 NYS.2d 774 l.2d Depl 200..+j). rhc standards c.:ited by plaintiffs cxpt:rt usl' the tc:rm ··should" when dcscrihing the mannc.:r or a machines dt:sign and. as such. arc aspirational rather than the industr: :-.Landan.ls.

l"inall). plaintiff docs not nlkr opposition to Balemasll.·1" s applications for di smissal of the

1r a11ufoc.:lllring: anJ strict products liabil ity. 1\n:mdingly. the: motion h~ <lc: kndan! Bakmastcr for ->Utnmary i11dg.1m:n1 dismissing the complaint. the cou111erclaim. and an' n oss-cla ims aµains l it i:-. granted

< 'om-cr-;cl) . Clare Rmc.: has foikd to estahlish a wi11w.f~1cie case or cntitkment Lo summur> judgmc:nt (.H'<' Barretta 1· (i/eu Cm·e Prop. , Ll.C. J..+8 .\I nd I JOO. 50 NYS3d 520 I 2d lkpt 20171: ..-ee :~c· 111 • ru/(1 -f!l'f11r;, 1• l'rmpecf flosp. '"/Jr<ll. Pat ('oslan/1) lt'-;titi~d that he \\<lS tl11..· n:tirl'd Din.:ctor of Sal\.:ty and Risk Management ror ( 'lme Rose and that his po~itinn n:q ui rc:d him tn ··de\ clop and implement and enlorcl.! a health and safety progn.1111:· Al a point in time prior tl> rlaimilrs acc.:ident. \Ir. < 'osta111< • rcqul.' '>tl'd p1.·rmission from l ~RRl"s c.:mrloyce. S:unuc:I ( ·asoria. w prcn id1..· ">akt: training to t· l<l<I <; cmplo~c.:e">. hut dill not sl'ck such permission frn111 Clare Ro~e. i\ Jr. Cl1sta1110 :-.tah.:d -.,ud1 p..:rmiss1on \\"<IS granted hy Mr. Casoria. and that he suhsl.!qu1.·111ly prn,·idcd onl'-tHHlllL' sat"ct: training 10

1'::l' 11 !' !: RR1 · .., '> llpl'l" 'i~P r-; 1 : r~n1k Pere/ . Mr. ('n .. 1:111m i11d ic1tc:d th:it lw tlwn nh'l'r\l'd Mr Pcrt'i' 1rai11

[* 8]

( 1ranados ' Bak·n~t:-.h.:r indl''\ \..(). i 2- i-i·1~2

Paµl' <>

I· RRr" l'mpln: L't'" 111 .i group ..,l' ting. and occa-;i1111<1ll: c1111duch.·d his n\\ n µn>u p ... akl.' trn1n111µ "L''>-;inn:-. \\ ilh 1linst.: 1·. J<RI l'lllplnyt.:t:" \Ir. ( 'os1:m1t' ll'st iliL.'d 1h:11 i11 thL.' kll .'L'ar'> lh.: "'I~ L'lllphl.'l'd h.' ClarL· l<n"L" 111: tll'\L'I 1>1h:1.ucd .i 1.a1dh11,ud haki . 111.: '-La11.·d h1.· · 1..i111,,j ... j tht.: 1Pd,11ut r 111c1.:dll1..: 1,, • .i "fk1.ilic pit.:ct.: Pl.t.:qu1p111l'nl. hu1 jht.: thl1.'> lHlll 1\ 1111\\ fhl\\ th1.· machi11l' ''ork..; and ho\\ 1(.., rL·p.iirl'd Pr maintai11L'd .·· I pm quL'Sl11111inµ. \Ir. Cns1;1111<1 ll''>lilil'd that he: "a" not :l\\arL.'. prior tn pbimilf.., an:idt.:111. that l ·RRI t:mplo.'l'l':-. \\t.:rl' b:passinµ the limit S\\iti..:h l lll the hakr·s li.:L·d l'hllll' do\lr . .t\:-.h·d \\'hat ill' \\Ou Id ha\'l: do111.· had he kno\\ 11. J\lr. Cost:u110 i11Llil'ated that he would hm t.: instru<.:tl'd 1-.RRI to

rl'lllnl 1lw ·m i1d1 to its prnpcr fu11ctio11ing and nol aher it aµai11. :vl r Cosla1111l -;t:ik·d. ho\\1.'\ t.:r. that '"ht.: rnn·1 i11strui..:1 t h:m. hut <.:an lonl: I ad\ isc tlll·m: ·

lkfi.irc a dt.:fi.:11dant ma:-. be held li:1bk for negl igt:n<.:l'. it musl ht: sht>\\ll tllal the <.kfl:ndant O\\l'S a Juty to till' plaintiff ( '<'<' Pu/J..a 1• L'tle/111a11 . -W NY2d 781. ><>O YS2d .N} j J 97<i l: 1:·11ge/1111r11· Co1111~r of Ort1111fe. 16 , \ l)Jd J(i9. 790 :'\YS2d 704 I 2d I kpt 2005 I). The 0\\ ner nr rossL'"'nr of real propert: nust act ··as a reasonahk person in maintaining .1is or her property in a reasonahl: sak condition in Yil' \\ or all th1.• t:ir~Ull1Sta1H.:L.'S . including till' likel ihood or in.J UI')' lO OllH.:rS. the si:riOUSl1t.:SS Of' thl' injur:. and the bun.kn nra\'Oiding the risk·· (Rigatti ,. Geba. 1-W /\J)3d TJ.J. 723. :rn NYS3d 89812d Dept 201(>1. quotin1! Bas.\·o 1• Miller. -10 'Y2d 233. 38() 'YS2d 56-t 119761). This dut~ ma) he hrcachi.:d if a dangerous an<l t.kkcti\l~ condition is permittc.:d to exist on thl' proper!) am! sueh i..:ondition causes injurks (see Blutlt i• Bias Yaako1•Academy.for Girls. 123 /\ 1>3d 8Mi. 999 NYS2d 8-tO !2d Dept 201-t.j : Co1111eal~r 1• Diocese ofRock. i•i/le Ctr . . 116 1\1).)d 905. 98-t. NYS2J 12712d Dept 2014 ]: Ortega 1•

liher~J' lloldiltf:s . LLC. I I I /\ D3d 90-1. 976 \i YS2d 1-t 7 I 2d Dept 2013 I). For an °"' ncr or possessor of real property to h1.: liahle to a plaintiff \\'ho is injurc:<l as a result or an allegedly ddix:tive condition upon propert; ... it must he established that a dekcti\ c condition e:\ist~d and that the lando\\ ncr artinnatin:I) ncated the condi tion or had actua l or constructive notice of its C.'l:. iswncc .. (Mona.\·tiriotis '' Monasliriotis. 14 I /\ 1)3d 5 I 0. 511. 15 YS3d '.265 I 2d I kpt 2016 I).

/\n ··out-of-possl.'ssion landlord is not liahk for injuries that occur on its premises unless the 1.111dlord has retained control over the premises an<l has a dut) imposed by statute or asstuncd by contract or a CllUrsc of C<)JH.luct" ( Cas.wm 1· McC01111ell. I -t8 /\ 1)3d 863. 86-t. 49 NYS3d 71 I I 2d Dept 20 I 7 j). I Im' L·VL'r. even an out-ol"-posscssion landlord "Im assumed the responsi hi lit: to make repairs to its rropcrty cannot he held liahk for injuries caused hy a delecti\ e con<lition on the property unless it crt:all.:d or had ac tu 1l or c..:onstructivt: notice or it (see Dm•itlwm I' S teel Equitie.'t. U8 /\D3d 91 1. 912. 30 :- i Y~~d : 75 !::'.d !"l• .. T' 2n1r' !}. Tn ~"n~ti!u!t' '''"''\rnc•i, .. _. q111ie1: '.\ t,1,.1;:1·11m.1<;1 h1· , .j,jhlP :111d ;ipp:11«•n1

and it lllUSt e:-;isl !'or a suJfo.:ient il'ngth ortillll' pnor to thL' lll't:iJenl lO pL'rl11it dl'li:ndant to diSl'll\c..'r and remedy it he<' (iordnn 1• A m erican M11se11111 <?l Natural llistory. 6 7 Y2d 836. 50 I N YS2d ()46 119861: Toma 1· Ri:;kalla. 138 /\J)3J 1103. 30 NYS3d 321 12d Dept 20161: Wifli.\· 1· Galileo Cortla11d1, /.LC. l 0(> /\D3d 730. W>-t NYS2d )7() 12d Dept 20 13 j).

It is g1..•nt..· rall:-. hl'id that ··control is thL' test ,,·hieh mca..;urcs gl'llt:rall: tht.: n:spn:i-;ihilit: in tort nl

i h1~ 1)\\ lll'f or real fl i"l)pt.:rty" ( Rillo ,. (iofdherg. 27 :--.. Y::!d 887. 889. 317 ' YS::!J 361 11970 I). I houµh. as ··common law has i:voh«.:d. the mi.:aning ol' ·co111rol" has changed. and in many commnn situations it ma~·

lltl lonµl'r be al'curate to say that <.:ontrol. as that term is currL'ntly us~d. is a rl'iiahk lllt..'asure or an out-or-po'>scssion 1.rndlor<l· s duty" (Al11as'1mi i· Certified Am1~rti<-al (iroup. luc . . 89 1\D3d I 0. I <i. <>29 \ y ;-;2J h20 i 2<l Dept 20 j i I). In Ritto. LhL' Court or .-\ppcals ilcld that <I landlord. ··h~ .1 iollg LOUl':-.t..' (Ir t:ond11<.:t ol"his employees in reporting mal function<; of thl' nrnchint,;s 10 the rqntir sl.'n ice and !hl' <l\\lll'r. "P il1ll'r\'•.'11 t..'d ill tJW nJ'•.'rntinn nrtlw h11"il1l'"" :1' ln gi\'1' ri._~, In :J r1..·J ii1Jll'c.' h~' 1L'l1i1Jll-; in till' huiJd in_u

[* 9]

( iranado:-: ' Bak111a-.;1er 1111.11:\ '\o. i :. - i-4'JX: J>a~1: IO

1111 repnn-.: ol rnalr1111c1 :on kin~ math: h: 1hc landlord ... I li1..·1i. ...J. 1 _'1..'ar.., la11..:r. 1l1l' ( ·11un n!' :\ppcal-, t:PllllllL'lll1..'d nn th1.~ Nitto c:t'\L'. '>latin~ .. dL·..,pill'. a ka'>c that 1r~111...,krrl'd pnssl'..;..,ion ~111d control lo

\.'.tl l111lll'f\.'ial ll:lli..1111!-. the i\'>lll' or\\ th.:lhLT Lill' i:tlldlnro ltt:[UHll_\ L'.\l't'l.:i-,i:d L'.llll\iet\ il\L' I ihL· 1m.:ll l;:'>L':-O \\d;-.

\llll' fc.ir the i tir;. ·· ((,roml..i 1· Co1111~r t~f J/o11roe 18 >. Y 'd ' 7-L .l 71>- '80. 9411 '\ YS2d '18 j 20 I I j). 111 (,'romki. lhc Court nr .:\ppL·als l(111nd a tri:1hk i'\!'llL' .. rcrnainlc<l I tu hL' rc.:soh cd h: a tril'r or l ~ICI 1ur1 \\ hL·lher j th1..• prnp1:1t: d\\ lll'.rl. llJro11gh it:-. t:our:-ie or C\lllJUt:t. C\L'l"l:ist.:d '>llflicit:nt t:Olllnll O\L'r lhL' jsu~j ct:t pro111.·nyl such that it tml'J plaintiff a dul;. lo prc\·1:111 and rc111L·d: the kind nf condition that rc.:sult\.·d in lplaintilr .., 1 injur: .. (id. at .'82).

(ii\L'Il that Clan: Rost: ha:- not :-.uh111itt1..·d the lease or rental agreement between it anti l·RRI. L'\tant at the timl' or plaintirrs alkg1:J inj11ry. the Courl is unabk to ruk nn the st:opc or tht: duties ( 'L.w1: Ros1.· O\\L'd to ERRI ( H'<' Gronski 1• Co1111~r <~{ Mo11roe. supra: Ca.non 1• McCmmell. s111Jra: 1.:f A/11a.-.llmi 1· Certified A11a~rtical (iroup, Inc .. s111wa ). Further. \llr. ( 'oslarv.c>"s tL'Stimony. read in i..:on.i.mcti\lll \\.ith 1111.· dl'position testimnn: olTrank Pera. Juan Rodrigue/.. and Samud Casoria. raises triahk is-;ues as to wht:th-:r ( '!are Ro~c. as the prcrni!--es O\\ nc:r. is an out-of-po-;scs-;ion la11dlord: \\'hat deg.rec orconm)I Clare: Rose muimained owr l:RRI: ''hctht:r Clare Rose had the authority to direct the acti<1ns or ERRJ"s L·mplo~ccs: and \\'hdher the disahkJ l~t:d chute Joor limit S\\it<.:h rcpn:sl'ntcd a dangerous condition. or which it had notice(.\'('(' Grom;ki I ' Coull~)' <if 1Wo11roe. Sli/Jta: .\('(.'also Bouima 1• /)acomi, Jue .. 36 AD3d 739. 829 >. YS2d 5T2 j2d Dept 2007]: Tllompso11 v Port A uth .. 305 /\D2d 581. 761 NYS2d 75 l2d Dept 2003 J: Helena 11 300 Park ,.fre., LLC. 306 AD2d I 70. 763 ' YS2<l 5-l2 j 1st Dept :2001 p. t\cwr<lingl). the motion by Clare Rose for summary judgment dismissing the rnmplaint against it is denied.

Dated: (ktohcr 10. 2017 .. o~

. cling .luslicc Supreme Court

FINAL DISPO~ITIOi\ ___L_ NON- FINAi . DiSPOS iTiON

[* 10]