| Garcia v Woodgrove Sales, Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06115 [65 AD3d 516] |
| August 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Rosa Garcia et al., Appellants, v Woodgrove Sales, Inc., etal., Defendants, and Pride Solvents & Chemical Co. of N.Y., Inc., Also Known as Pride Solvents& Chemical Co., Inc., Respondent. (And Other Titles.) |
—[*1] Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, N.Y. (Karen L. Campbell of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based on strict productsliability, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated August 15, 2008, as granted those branches of the motionof the defendant Pride Solvents & Chemical Co. of N.Y., Inc., also known as Pride Solvents &Chemical Co., Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action allegingfailure to warn and breach of warranty insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thosebranches of the respondent's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes ofaction alleging failure to warn and breach of warranty insofar as asserted against it are denied.
The plaintiff Rose Garcia alleges that she was injured when a cleaning liquid manufacturedby the defendant Pride Solvents & Chemical Co. of N.Y., Inc., also known as Pride Solvents &Chemical Co., Inc. (hereinafter Pride), caught fire. The vapors of the cleaning liquid ignitedupon coming into contact with a flame within a hot water heater. The plaintiffs commenced thisaction against, among others, Pride. Pride moved for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against it, and the motion was granted.[*2]
The Supreme Court erred in granting those branches ofPride's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' causes of actionalleging failure to warn and breach of warranty. Pride demonstrated its prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law on those causes of action. However, in opposition, the plaintiffs'experts raised triable issues of fact as to the adequacy of the warning label on the cleaning liquid,which indicated that it was only slightly flammable (see DiMura v City of Albany, 239AD2d 828, 829 [1997]; Johnson v Johnson Chem. Co., 183 AD2d 64, 69 [1992]), and asto whether the cleaning liquid was reasonably fit for its intended purpose (see Denny v FordMotor Co., 87 NY2d 248 [1995]; Wojcik v Empire Forklift, Inc., 14 AD3d 63 [2004]). The plaintiffsalso raised triable issues of fact as to whether the warning label, if inadequate, was a proximatecause of the accident, and as to whether the cleaning liquid was being used in a reasonablyforeseeable manner at the time of the incident (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51NY2d 308, 315 [1980]).
Pride's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Belen,JJ., concur.