Majority
In an action to recover damages based on strict products liability, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated December 22, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324 [1986]). Specifically, the defendant failed to establish that the subject product performed as intended or that there existed a likely cause of the accident not attributable to any defect in
Cases cited
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 810
- Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 100 NY2d 38 at 41 p. 811
- D'Auguste v. Shanty Hollow Corp. 26 AD3d 403 at 404-405 p. 811
- Milazzo v. Premium Technical Services Corp. 7 AD3d 586 at 588 p. 811
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 at 853 p. 811