You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING DEFENDANT’S BOW; DEFENDANT MOVED FOR...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING DEFENDANT’S BOW; DEFENDANT MOVED FOR PERMISSION TO PERFORM TESTS ON THE BOW WHICH INVOLVED REMOVING AND THEN REPLACING THE DAMAGED COMPONENT OF THE BOW; THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH TESTING WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant bow manufacturer (PSE) was not entitled to testing of the bow beyond the visual inspection already done. Plaintiff was struck in the eye when using the bow. Defendant moved for permission to replace the damaged component of the bow, test the bow, and then replace the damaged component. Supreme Court had granted the motion:

A party “seeking to conduct destructive testing should provide a reasonably specific justification for such testing including, inter alia, the basis for its belief that nondestructive testing is inadequate and that destructive testing is necessary; further, there should be an enumeration and description of the precise tests to be performed, including the extent to which each such test will alter or destroy the item being tested” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the additional testing proposed by PSE is non-destructive, we conclude that PSE failed to establish in the first instance that the additional testing is “material and necessary” to its defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a] …). PSE’s expert made only a conclusory statement that re-stringing the bow with an undamaged component “should better represent the condition it was in prior to the” accident … . Therefore, even in the absence of an abuse of the court’s discretion, we substitute our own discretion for that of the motion court and deny the motion … . Roche v Precision Shooting Equip., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02419, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: There are standards which must be met in a products liability case before a court will allow testing, either nondestructive of destructive testing, of the product. Those standards were not met by the motion papers in this case.

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK (FOURTH DEPT).
Request for Petitioner’s Income Tax Records Properly Denied—Insufficient Showing the Desired Information Could Not Be Gained from Other Sources
DEFENDANT WAS AWARE HER DOG COULD ATTACK ANOTHER DOG AND IT WAS FORESEEABLE A DOG OWNER WOULD TRY TO SEPARATE THE DOGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR, HIS COUNSEL APPEARED AND FATHER WAS THEREFORE NOT IN DEFAULT; BECAUSE FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT, APPEAL IS NOT PRECLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).
SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED.
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
WITNESS TAMPERING CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL REVERSED; NO CHARGES WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN 2010 WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STARTED WAS REVOKED BEFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT (FOURTH 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 MARIJUANA FELONY CONVICTION WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND... THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER CAN BE APPLIED TO DISMISS A KIDNAPPING CHARGE EVEN IF...