Frey v. Rockford Safety Equipment Co.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, the manufacturers of two safety components incorporated into a punch press, on the ground that plaintiff’s employer had modified and in fact defeated the purpose of the safety components, thus causing plaintiff’s injury. A manufacturer may not be cast in damages, either for negligence or for products liability, where, after the product leaves the manufacturer’s hands, there is a subsequent modification that substantially alters the product and is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, 49 NY2d 471 , 475). That is true whether a plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for an alleged product defect or for an alleged failure to warn (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, supra, at 480 ; Magee v Bliss Co., 120 AD2d 926 ; see also, Kingsland v Industrial Brown Hoist Co., 136 AD2d 901 ). As revealed by the parties’ submissions, plaintiff’s injury was the direct result of her employer’s installation of a switch that allowed the press to be operated without the barrier device. Were it not for that modification, the machine