Schuler v. S & S Corrugated Paper Machinery Co.
38 A.D.3d 1345
N.Y. App. Div.
2007
Check Treatment

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered May 12, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendant Valeo Cincinnati, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, granted the motion of third-party defendant Copar Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint against it and denied in part the motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that defendant Valeo Cincinnati, Inc. (Valeo) established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that its component parts were not defective and did not contribute to the accident involving plaintiff Donald E Schuler (see e.g. Jones v W + M Automation, Inc., 31 *1346AD3d 1099 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 802; Hothan v Herman Miller, Inc., 294 AD2d 333, 333-334 [2002]; Ayala v V & O Press Co., 126 AD2d 229, 234-235 [1987]). Although Valeo would periodically make repairs to its component parts on the machine at issue, we conclude that, in the absence of a routine maintenance contract or other ongoing relationship requiring Valeo to service the machine, Valeo had no duty to inspect the machine or to warn about defects “ ‘unrelated to the problem that it was summoned to correct’ ” (Rutherford v Signode Corp., 11 AD3d 922, 923 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 702 [2005]; cf. Dauernheim v Lendlease Cars, 238 AD2d 462, 463 [1997]). Present—Gorski, J.E, Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.