Guarino v. Mohawk Containers Co., Inc.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Small v. St. Barnabas Hosp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- KUHN, JAMES C. v. CAMELOT ASSOCIATION, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Kuhn v. Camelot Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Doe v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matuszak v. B.R.K. Brands, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Williams v. Nolde (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- O'Melia v. Antoncic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Edwards v. Terryville Meat Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Seidman v. Booth Memorial Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Eksouzian v. Levenson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Hecht v. Vanderbilt Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Monteleone v. Incorporated Village of Floral Park (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- State v. Willets Point Contracting Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Witte v. Incorporated Village of Port Washington North (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Smith v. Johnson Products Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts or circumstances from which it could be found that his use of defendant’s product was foreseeable, and accordingly summary judgment was properly granted. Inasmuch as plaintiff had deposed one of defendant’s officers and in the 17 months available had not indicated a desire for further disclosure, that he now asserts that he had not completed discovery does not interdict the grant of summary judgment (Chemical Bank v PIC Motors Corp., 58 NY2d 1023).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Simons taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), . order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.