General
Milton C. David et al., Appellants, v. Cornelius Company, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents
174 A.D.2d 1021·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1991·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Milton C. David et al., Appellants, v Cornelius Company, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
[MAJORITY]
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs failed to controvert unequivocal evidence submitted by defendant that it did not manufacture a Model 85-5 beverage tank and that it imprinted its name on every beverage tank it manufactured. Thus, defendant could not have distributed or sold the beverage tank which allegedly caused the injury. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.