Rose v. Gelco Corp.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated July 1, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendants Gelco Corporation and Gelco CorpVG.E. Capital Fleet Services pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Robert Rose sustained physical injuries during
The plaintiffs are also not entitled to recovery under a theory of strict products liability or breach of implied warranty as the allegations in support of these causes of action are devoid of a factual basis and are vague and conclusory (see, Schuckman Realty v Marine Midland Bank, 244 AD2d 400). The factual allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient to support the claim that the van was defectively designed or manufactured (see, Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, Inc., 88 NY2d 413, 425; Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106-107). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.