Opinion
No. CA 06-01650.
March 16, 2007.
Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered May 12, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendant Valco Cincinnati, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, granted the motion of third-party defendant Copar Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint against it and denied in part the motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff for summary judgment.
HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (JILL L. YONKERS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS.
IACONO, CAMBS AND GOERGEN, BUFFALO, GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP (JOHN J. JABLONSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. WILLETT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that defendant Valco Cincinnati, Inc. (Valco) established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that its component parts were not defective and did not contribute to the accident involving plaintiff Donald P Schuler ( see e.g. Jones v W + M Automation, Inc., 31 AD3d 1099, lv denied 8 NY3d 802; Hothan v Herman Miller, Inc., 294 AD2d 333, 333-334; Ayala v V O Press Co., 126 AD2d 229, 234-235). Although Valco would periodically make repairs to its component parts on the machine at issue, we conclude that, in the absence of a routine maintenance contract or other ongoing relationship requiring Valco to service the machine, Valco had no duty to inspect the machine or to warn about defects "`unrelated to the problem that it was summoned to correct'" ( Rutherford v Signode Corp., 11 AD3d 922, 923, lv denied 4 NY3d 702; cf. Dauernheim v Lendlease Cars, 238 AD2d 462, 463).