You are here: / / THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY...
,

THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS PURCHASED AT A PARTICULAR HOME DEPOT STORE, IN THE FACE OF PROOF THE STORE DID NOT OPEN UNTIL YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED PURCHASE, THE OWNER OF THE LADDER ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS EITHER PURCHASED AT A DIFFERENT TIME OR AT A DIFFERENT HOME DEPOT STORE, HOME DEPOT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this defective ladder products liability case. Defendant Garberg, the owner of the ladder, alleged he purchased the ladder at a specific Home Depot store between 1994 and 1995. Home Depot demonstrate the store in question did not open until 2001. Garberg then submitted an affidavit alleging he either bought ladder after the store opened or he bought the ladder at another Home Depot store (which was identified):

” [L]iability may not be imposed for . . . strict products liability upon a party that is [*2]outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain'”… . Here, Home Depot established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain… . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this issue. Garberg’s 2016 affidavit contained assertions made for the first time in opposition to the motion and merely raised feigned issues designed to avoid the consequences of Garberg’s earlier affidavit. Garberg swore to the 2016 affidavit after he settled with the plaintiff, after the close of discovery, and after Home Depot submitted its conclusive proof establishing that he could not have purchased the defective ladder when and where he claimed he had. The 2016 affidavit speculated about a possible purchase at a different Home Depot location that, unlike the Cropsey Avenue location, the parties did not have the opportunity to explore during discovery. Garberg also contradicted his prior unambiguous assertion about the timing of his purchase. His 2016 opposition affidavit was, therefore, insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Rooney v Garberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 08521, Second Dept 11-12-18

 

You might also like
TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED, STRONG DISSENT.
PLAINTIFF SUED HER EMPLOYER IN NEGLIGENCE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A COWORKER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS IN THE COURSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO RAISE A FEIGNED FACTUAL ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE POLICE REPORT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DECEDENT’S WIFE’S CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER 9-11 IS SUBJECT TO THE TWO-YEAR DEADLINE FOR NOTICE IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 28; BECAUSE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE DEATH BENEFITS CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT; DEFENDANT LESSOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGATION THE CAR WAS NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED WAS “NOT A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT). ​
Presumption in Favor of Resentencing (re: the New Scheme for Drug Offenses) Not Rebutted—Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion for Resentencing
NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A COMMON LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE... A BLOCKED TRACHEOSTOMY TUBE IS A FORESEEABLE EVENT FOR WHICH DEFENDANT ANESTHESIOLOGIST...