Majority
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 20, 2001, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant General Forklift Company, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In response to the prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law made by the defendant General Forklift Company, Inc. (hereinafter GFC) (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 ), the plaintiffs contend that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether an alleged statement made over the telephone by a GFC representative constituted a false assurance that the forklift was safe to use. However,
Cases cited
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 p. 449
- Stern v. 522 Shore Road Owners, Inc. 237 AD2d 277 p. 450
- Ayala v. V & O Press Co. 126 AD2d 229 p. 450
- Vermette v. Kenworth Truck Co. 111 AD2d 448 p. 450