adequacy warning in New York

2014Consequently, “ ‘[i]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact’ to be determined at trial” (Johnson v UniFirst Corp., 90 AD3d 1539, 1540 [2011]; see Repka v Arctic Cat, Inc., 20 AD3d 916, 918 [2005]).

2014Consequently, “ ‘[i]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact’ to be determined at trial” (Johnson v UniFirst Corp., 90 AD3d 1539, 1540 [2011]; see Repka v Arctic Cat, Inc., 20 AD3d 916, 918 [2005]).

2025Co ., 5 NY3d 561, 571 [2005]; David D.

2025Co ., 5 NY3d 561, 571 [2005]; David D.

2005“The adequacy of the warning in a products liability case based on a failure to warn is, in all but the most unusual circumstances, a question of fact to be determined at trial” (id., quoting Cooley v Carter-Wallace Inc., 102 AD2d 642, 648 [1984]).

2001“The adequacy of the warning in a products liability case based on a failure to warn is, in all but the most unusual circumstances, a question of fact to be determined at trial” (Cooley v Carter-Wallace, Inc., 102 AD2d 642 ).

1994Assuming, arguendo, that the decedent died of liver cancer, the adequacy of the warnings given has not been established as a matter of law (compare, Martin v Hacker, 83 NY2d 1 ; Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59 , affd, 52 NY2d 768 ; Eiser v Feldman, 123 AD2d 583 ).

1994Although the adequacy of a warning generally is a question of fact, "in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law” (Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 65 ; see, Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, 62 , affd 52 NY2d 768 ; Biss v Tenneco, Inc., 64 AD2d 204 , lv denied 46 NY2d 711 ).

2024See Eiser v Feldman, 123 AD2d 583,584 (1986).

1994Assuming, arguendo, that the decedent died of liver cancer, the adequacy of the warnings given has not been established as a matter of law (compare, Martin v Hacker, 83 NY2d 1 ; Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59 , affd, 52 NY2d 768 ; Eiser v Feldman, 123 AD2d 583 ).

1990(See, e.g., Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261 [1984]; Cooley v Carter-Wallace Inc., 102 AD2d 642 [4th Dept 1984].) The standard for the adequacy of a warning is one of reasonableness. "[A] manufacturer’s standard of care includes the dissemination of such information, whether styled as warnings or instructions, sis is appropriate for the safe use of its product.

1988Corp., 540 F2d 174, 179; cf., Cover v Cohen, supra, at 276) (the adequacy of the warning looks both at the nature of the warning and to whom it should be given).

2022Co. , 183 AD2d 64, 69 ).

2006Co., 183 AD2d 64 [1992]). “[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact” (Montufar v Shiva Automation Serv., 256 AD2d 607, 608 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Polimeni v Minolta Corp., 227 AD2d 64, 67 [1997]).

2006Cincinnati also failed to establish a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment regarding the adequacy of warnings for the use of this machine (see Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232, 237 [1998]).

1998Also, the appellant did not establish that the warnings that it did issue were adequate as a matter of law, or that such warnings would have been superfluous in light of an awareness on the part of the plaintiff, or, for that matter, on the part of the plaintiff’s employer, of the specific hazards associated with the circumvention of the safety features in question (see, Liriano v Hobart Corp., supra). “[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of warnings is a question of fact” (Morrow v Mackler Prods., 240 AD2d 175, 176 ; Polimeni v Minolta Corp., 227 AD2d 64, 67 ).

1998With respect to the cause of action for negligent failure to warn, “[a]t most, the duty of a casual or occasional seller would be to warn the person to whom the product is supplied of known defects that are not obvious or readily discernible” (Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., supra, at 97; see also, Copp v Corning Glass Works, 114 AD2d 144, 146 ). “ ‘The adequacy of the warning in a products liability case based on a failure to warn is, in all but the most unusual circumstances, a question of fact to be determined at trial’ ” (Frederick v Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 107 AD2d 1063, 1064 ).

1993"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 ).

2021Although "in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law" ( Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co. , 75 AD2d 55, 65 [4th Dept 1980]), the adequacy of a warning generally is a question of fact ( see Alessandrini v Weyerhauser Co., 207 AD2d 996, 996 [4th Dept 1994]).

2015Although the adequacy of a warning is usually a question of fact, “ ‘in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law’ ” (see Schiller v National Presto Indus., 225 AD2d 1053 , 1054 [1996], quoting Alessandrini v Weyerhauser Co., 207 AD2d 996, 996 [1994]).

2018Blvd., LLC , 101 AD3d 677 , 678 [2012]). "[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact" ( Polimeni v Minolta Corp. , 227 AD2d 64, 67 [1997]).

2006Co., 183 AD2d 64 [1992]). “[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact” (Montufar v Shiva Automation Serv., 256 AD2d 607, 608 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Polimeni v Minolta Corp., 227 AD2d 64, 67 [1997]).

2015Although the adequacy of a warning is usually a question of fact, “ ‘in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law’ ” (see Schiller v National Presto Indus., 225 AD2d 1053 , 1054 [1996], quoting Alessandrini v Weyerhauser Co., 207 AD2d 996, 996 [1994]).

2012“Although the adequacy of a warning generally is a question of fact, in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law” (Schiller v National Presto Indus., 225 AD2d 1053, 1054 [1996] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see generally Theoharis v Pengate Handling Sys. of N.Y., 300 AD2d 884, 884-885 [2002]).

2014Here, defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that the warnings were adequate or that the failure to give warnings was not a proximate cause of the accident (cf. Pizzaro v City of New York, 188 AD2d 591, 593 [1992], lv denied 82 NY2d 656 [1993]).

2014Here, defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that the warnings were adequate or that the failure to give warnings was not a proximate cause of the accident (cf. Pizzaro v City of New York, 188 AD2d 591, 593 [1992], lv denied 82 NY2d 656 [1993]).

2014Consequently, “ ‘[i]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact’ to be determined at trial” (Johnson v UniFirst Corp., 90 AD3d 1539, 1540 [2011]; see Repka v Arctic Cat, Inc., 20 AD3d 916, 918 [2005]).

2014Consequently, “ ‘[i]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact’ to be determined at trial” (Johnson v UniFirst Corp., 90 AD3d 1539, 1540 [2011]; see Repka v Arctic Cat, Inc., 20 AD3d 916, 918 [2005]).

2012Food, Inc., 34 AD3d 545 [2006]; Haight v Banner Metals, 300 AD2d 356 [2002]).

2011Food, Inc., 34 AD3d 545, 547 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Repka v Arctic Cat, Inc., 20 AD3d 916, 918 [2005]).

1997"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 ).

1993"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 ).

2024Of note, the adequacy of the warnings are not being challenged by defendant on this motion. "[T]he purpose of CPL 710.30 is to inform a defendant that the People intend to offer evidence of a statement to a public officer at trial so that a timely motion to suppress the evidence may be made" ( People v Rodney , 85 NY2d 289, 291-292 [1995]).

2024Of note, the adequacy of the warnings are not being challenged by defendant on this motion. "[T]he purpose of CPL 710.30 is to inform a defendant that the People intend to offer evidence of a statement to a public officer at trial so that a timely motion to suppress the evidence may be made" ( People v Rodney , 85 NY2d 289, 291-292 [1995]).

2021In any event, the summation of plaintiff's counsel was not inflammatory or unduly prejudicial such as to require a new trial ( see Gregware v City of New York , 132 AD3d 51, 61 [1st Dept 2015]; Pareja v City of New York , 49 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2008]).

2021In any event, the summation of plaintiff's counsel was not inflammatory or unduly prejudicial such as to require a new trial ( see Gregware v City of New York , 132 AD3d 51, 61 [1st Dept 2015]; Pareja v City of New York , 49 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2008]).

2015At the Outley hearing, the People submitted the felony complaints and indictment charging defendant with attempted murder, and “[b]oth defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to refute the [People’s] assertions that defendant had violated the plea terms” (People v Albergotti, 17 NY3d 748, 750 [2011]).

2015At the Outley hearing, the People submitted the felony complaints and indictment charging defendant with attempted murder, and “[b]oth defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to refute the [People’s] assertions that defendant had violated the plea terms” (People v Albergotti, 17 NY3d 748, 750 [2011]).

2021Although "in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law" ( Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co. , 75 AD2d 55, 65 [4th Dept 1980]), the adequacy of a warning generally is a question of fact ( see Alessandrini v Weyerhauser Co., 207 AD2d 996, 996 [4th Dept 1994]).

1994Although the adequacy of a warning generally is a question of fact, "in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law” (Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 65 ; see, Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, 62 , affd 52 NY2d 768 ; Biss v Tenneco, Inc., 64 AD2d 204 , lv denied 46 NY2d 711 ).

2011Moreover, the adequacy of the warnings accompanying the machine was an issue of fact for the jury (see Morrow v Mackler Prods., 240 AD2d 175 ), and the record supports the jury’s determination that the failure of Cybex to warn purchasers and users of the machine’s potential tipping hazard was also a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries.

2011Moreover, the adequacy of the warnings accompanying the machine was an issue of fact for the jury (see Morrow v Mackler Prods., 240 AD2d 175 [1997]), and the record supports the jury’s determination that the failure of Cybex to warn purchasers and users of the machine’s potential tipping hazard was also a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries.

1994Assuming, arguendo, that the decedent died of liver cancer, the adequacy of the warnings given has not been established as a matter of law (compare, Martin v Hacker, 83 NY2d 1 ; Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59 , affd, 52 NY2d 768 ; Eiser v Feldman, 123 AD2d 583 ).

1994Although the adequacy of a warning generally is a question of fact, "in a proper case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn or that the duty has been discharged as a matter of law” (Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 65 ; see, Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, 62 , affd 52 NY2d 768 ; Biss v Tenneco, Inc., 64 AD2d 204 , lv denied 46 NY2d 711 ).

2002Corp., 237 AD2d 882 ; Smith v Minster Mach.

1999Corp., 237 AD2d 882, 883 [4th Dept 1997] [jury is to decide whether warnings or instructions are adequate]; Beyrle v Finneron, 199 AD2d 1022 [4th Dept 1993] [“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”]; Bukowski v CooperVision Inc., 185 AD2d 31, 33 [3d Dept 1993] [same]; Erony v Alza Corp., 913 F Supp 195, 199 [SD NY 1995] [“Generally, whether a warning is adequate is an issue of fact to be determined at trial”].) Initially it should be noted that the movants

2017However, the defendant failed to preserve these issues for appellate review, since she did not request a hearing, object to the adequacy of the inquiry conducted by the court, object to the procedure employed by the court, or move to withdraw her plea of guilty (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Reynolds, 27 NY3d 1099, 1101 [2016]; People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807, 808 [1999]; People v Cousar, 128 AD3d at 716 ; People v Ali O., 115 AD3d 1353, 1353-1354 [2014]; People v Stafford, 115 AD3d 683, 683 [2014]; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 490 [2000]).

2012However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant never objected to the adequacy of the inquiry conducted by the County Court, or moved to withdraw his plea (see People v Kitchens, 46 AD3d at 578 ; People v Darcy, 34 AD3d 230, 231 [2006]; People v Benn, 23 AD3d 574 [2005]; People v Potter, 288 AD2d 330 [2001]; People v Miles, 268 AD2d at 490 ).