Legal Opinion

Bradley v. Earl B. Feiden, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 8, 2006Published

1Dissent

Lahtinen, J. (dissenting).

We respectfully dissent. In the special verdict sheet and its charge to the jury (which elicited no objection), Supreme Court tied a finding regarding the defrost timer to the products liability cause of action, but did not require a finding about the defrost timer for the breach of implied warranty claim. Question number two of the special verdict sheet instructed the jurors that, if they did not find the defrost timer was defective, then they nevertheless should proceed to question number four, which asked: “Did [defendant] General Electric [Company, Inc.…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Denny v. Ford Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Caprara v. Chrysler Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
  5. Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2003

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API