Legal Opinion
Beyer v. Aquarium Supply Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 14, 1977PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
D. Vincent Cerrito, J.
This is a motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) to dismiss plaintiffs’ second cause of action which is founded upon the theory of strict products liability.
In essence, this cause of action alleges that the plaintiff, Beatrice Beyer, an employee of W. T. Grant Company, became ill after having come in contact with allegedly diseased hamsters which had been distributed by the defendant.
On this type of motion, the movant can prevail only if he can establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action. (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Codling v. PagliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Velez v. Craine & Clark Lumber Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1973
3Cited by7 opinions
- Blaha v. StuardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- Sease v. Taylor's Pets, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
- Latham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1991
- Worrell v. SachsConnecticut Superior Court · 1989
- Malicki v. KociOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.