green
Positive treatment
12.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC
Lugo v LJN Toys , 75 NY2d 850, 852 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brodie v. Green Spot Foods, LLC
Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd., 75 N.Y.2d 850, 852 (1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sofia Fasolas v. Bobcat of New York, Inc
Ruiz, Agency Expects More Deaths from G.M.’s Ignition Flaw, NY Times, May 24, 2014, at B3; Alex Berenson, Merck Agrees to Settle Vioxx Suits for $4.85 Billion, NY Times, Nov 9, 2007 at A1. 5 To the extent the majority focuses on the fact that Bobcat offered evidence that the loader was safe without the door kit “for [the specific] purpose of mov[ing] soil,” (majority op at 12, 14), the majority ignores our settled law that “[a] manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hockler v. William Powell Co.
Any way we could get it off these valves and pumps, cut or smash, break any way we could get them out.” “A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose” (Lugo v LJN Toys, 75 NY2d 850, 852 [1990] [citations omitted]; see also New Holland at 53-54).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reis v. Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
“A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose” (Lugo v LJN Toys, 75 NY2d 850, 852 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. Daglian
This includes a duty to warn of dangers relating to unintended uses, providing that such uses are reasonably foreseeable (see Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d at 237 ; Lugo v LJN Toys, 75 NY2d 850, 851 [1990]; Magadan v Interlake Packaging Corp., 45 AD3d at 652 ; Singh v G & A Mounting & Die Cutting, 276 AD2d 617 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
E.W. Tompkins Co. v. Board of Trustees of Clifton Park-Halfmoon Public Library
Under such circumstances, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v Cuomo, 200 AD2d 859, 860 [1994], lv dismissed 83 NY2d 884 [1994]; Matter of Harbour v Riedell, 172 AD2d 920, 921 [1991]), which is an issue the Court can raise on its own motion (see Matter of Flowers v Sullivan, 75 NY2d 850, 850 [1990]; Gaetani v Grippen, 183 AD2d 989, 990 [1992]; see also Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO, 72 NY2d 307, 311 [1988], cert…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Repka v. Arctic Cat, Inc.
As a matter of law, plaintiff was engaged in a foreseeable use of the product (see generally Lugo v LJN Toys, 75 NY2d 850, 852 [1990]), and not a “misuse of the product” (Crawford v Windmere Corp., 262 AD2d 268, 269 [1999], citing Sabbatino v Rosin & Sons Hardware & Paint, 253 AD2d 417 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 817 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estrada v. Berkel Inc.
“A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose” (Lugo v LJN Toys, Ltd., 75 NY2d 850, 852 [1990]; see Carbone v Alagna, supra at 456; Johnson, supra at 70 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoover v. New Holland North America, Inc.
Such a broad rule would lessen the manufacturer’s duty to design effective safety devices that make products safe for their intended purpose and “unintended yet reasonably foreseeable use” (Micallef, 39 NY2d at 385-386 ; see Lugo, 75 NY2d at 852).
discussed
Cited "see"
Porrazzo v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
See Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd., 75 N.Y.2d 850, 852 , 552 N.Y.S.2d 914 , 552 N.E.2d 162 (1990) (question of “whether the product was defective and reasonably safe for its intended use or a reasonably foreseeable unintended use” is for jury); Heller v. Encore of Hicksville, 53 N.Y.2d 716, 718 , 439 N.Y.S.2d 332 , 421 N.E.2d 824 (1981) (“It was within the province of the jury to determine” whether defendant failed to warn plaintiff of a “foreseeable” risk); Johnson v. Johnson Chem.
discussed
Cited "see"
DiMura v. City of Albany
"The adequacy of the instruction or warning is generally a question of fact to be determined at trial * * * and is not ordinarily susceptible to the drastic remedy of summary judgment” (Oliver v NAMCO Controls, 161 AD2d 1188, 1189 [citation omitted]; see, Lugo v LJN Toys, 146 AD2d 168, 170-171 , affd 75 NY2d 850 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bukowski v. CooperVision Inc.
"The adequacy of the instruction or warning is generally a question of fact to be determined at trial * * * and is not ordinarily susceptible to the drastic remedy of summary judgment” (Oliver v NAMCO Controls, 161 AD2d 1188, 1189 [citation omitted]; see, Lugo v LJN Toys, 146 AD2d 168, 170 , affd 75 NY2d 850 ; Frederick v Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 107 AD2d 1063, 1064 ; Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 64-65 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Giannotti v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A.
Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203-204 [1990]; Roginsky v Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 378 F2d 832, 843 [1967]; West v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 973 F Supp 385, 389 [1997]; see also Lugo v LJN Toys, 146 AD2d 168, 171 [1989], affd 75 NY2d 850 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mercogliano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Compliance with the Federal Flammable Fabrics Act ( 15 USC § 1191 et seq.) and its accompanying regulations (16 CFR part 1610 et seq.) is merely some evidence of due care and does not preclude a finding of negligence (see Feiner v Calvin Klein, Ltd., 157 AD2d 501, 502 [1990]; Sherman v Lowenstein & Sons, 28 AD2d 922 [1967]; see also Lugo v LJN Toys, 146 AD2d 168 [1989], affd 75 NY2d 850 [1990]).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Achatz v. Rollerblade, Inc.
Thus, as a matter of law, plaintiff’s claims based on failure to warn are precluded (see, Bazerman v Gardall Safe Corp., 203 AD2d 56 ; compare, Lugo v LJN Toys, 146 AD2d 168 , affd 75 NY2d 850 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Richard Flowers Et Al., Appellants,
v.
James Sullivan Et Al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.); In the Matter of Richard Flowers Et Al., Appellants, v. James Sullivan Et Al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)
v.
James Sullivan Et Al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.); In the Matter of Richard Flowers Et Al., Appellants, v. James Sullivan Et Al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 15, 1990.
552 N.E.2d 172
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
On the court’s own motion, appeal, insofar as taken by petitioners Flowers and Jefferson, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the issues raised on the appeal have become moot as to them. Motion for assignment of new counsel granted only to the extent that present counsel is relieved of her assignment.