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
Court Was Not Authorized to Deny a 440 Motion Without a Hearing Where People Submitted No Opposition to the Defendant’s Adequate Papers
EVIDENCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WARRANTED A NEGLECT FINDING, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SEARCH OF THE UNCONSCIOUS OR SLEEPING DEFENDANT’S POCKETS WAS NOT A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST OR A SEARCH PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE SEIZED COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM PERSONNEL WERE UNAWARE PLAINTIFF HAD EXECUTED A “MOLST” DECLINING LIFE-SAVING TREATMENT WHEN THEY PERFORMED CHEST COMPRESSIONS WHICH REVIVED PLAINTIFF BUT FRACTURED RIBS; PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ANOTHER HEART ATTACK SEVEN HOURS LATER AND DIED; A JURY AWARDED DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATE A STANDARD OF CARE OR A VIOLATION OF A STANDARD OF CARE; THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE SHOOTER IN THIS HOME INVASION CASE, FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES AT THE POLICE STATION BY A POLICE OFFICER, CASE SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE, DEFENDANT BAR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NOT VISIBLY INTOXICATED WHEN SERVED AND THEREFORE DID NOT MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN FOR ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT BAR MET ITS INITIAL BURDEN, THUS SHIFITNG THE BURDEN TO THE PLANTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARK ABOUT THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF A PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF A FAIR TRIAL; THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS SEEKING MONEY DAMAGES FROM THE STATE, RELEVANT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (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...