Opinion
Argued September 12, 2000.
October 16, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Emerson Electric Co. s/h/a U.S. Electrical Motors, a Division of Emerson Electric Co. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 10, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based on breach of the duty to warn insofar as asserted against it.
Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard Bakalor of counsel), for appellant.
Berel Mullen, New York, N.Y. (Harold B. Berel and Lisa M. Comeau of counsel), for respondents.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Since the combination of the appellant's "sound product with another sound product create[d] a dangerous condition", the appellant had a duty to warn the users of its product that this latent hazard could surface (Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289, 298). An issue of fact exists as to whether the appellant breached its duty by failing to provide "adequate warnings for the use of the product" (Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 237). Furthermore, an issue of fact exists as to whether such a breach, if any, was "a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury" (Billsborrow v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A., 177 A.D.2d 7, 17).