Legal Opinion
Campbell v. BIC Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 8, 1992PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
James N. White, J.
The defendant in this personal injury action predicated upon strict products liability and negligence theories of liabil*977ity is moving for an order dismissing the complaint on the ground it fails to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). In the event the motion is not granted, it seeks to have Mary Campbell’s derivative cause of action dismissed on the ground it is barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 3211 [a] [5]).
The standards followed in determining a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion are that the court must assume the truth of the complaint’s…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v. Northern Propane Gas Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- McGill v. ParkerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
- DeRosa v. Remington Arms Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1981
- Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Colon Ex Rel. Molina v. Bic USA, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
- Hernandez Ex Rel. Emeterio v. Tokai Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1999
- Bartholic v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.District Court, D. Colorado · 2000
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.