Summary
upholding summary judgment where plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence of such involvement or capability by trademark licensor and absent evidence licensor failed to observe corporate form in regard to operations of its manufacturing subsidiary
Summary of this case from Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford Ct. v. MurrayOpinion
November 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
While a trademark licensor not formally involved as a manufacturer, designer or seller may be subject to liability for injuries caused by a defective product where, for example, it has had significant involvement in distribution or is capable of exercising control over quality (see, Burkert v Petrol Plus, 216 Conn. 65, 77-82, 579 A.2d 26; Torres v Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 163 Ariz. 88, 93-94, 786 P.2d 939; Connelly v Uniroyal, Inc., 75 Ill.2d 393, 409-412, 389 N.E.2d 155; cf., Porter v LSB Indus., 192 A.D.2d 205), here plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence of such involvement by defendant licensor in opposition to its motion for summary judgment. Nor did plaintiffs adduce any evidence controverting defendant's proof that it observed the formalities of separate corporate existence, such as might justify holding defendant responsible for the wrongful act of its manufacturing subsidiary. We note that plaintiffs failed to initiate discovery in the 17 months between the commencement of the action and the instant motion.
We have considered appellants' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.