Summary
holding that because the defendant "did not design, manufacture or sell the allegedly defective product," it "could not be held liable for ... negligence"
Summary of this case from Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc.Opinion
February 16, 2000
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — Summary Judgment.
PRESENT: GREEN, A. P. J., HAYES, WISNER AND BALIO, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in with the following Memorandum:
Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court properly determined that defendant did not design, manufacture or sell the allegedly defective product and thus could not be held liable for either negligence or strict products liability ( see, Passaretti v. Aurora Pump Co., 201 A.D.2d 475; Porter v. LSB Indus., 192 A.D.2d 205, 215). The court erred, however, in concluding that defendant was equitably estopped from denying its responsibility and in thereafter granting plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint to include that theory. It is well settled that "[t]he doctrine of equitable estoppel is to be invoked sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances" ( Matter of Gross v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 122 A.D.2d 793, 794). Here, plaintiff did not plead the doctrine in the complaint or rely upon it in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see, Del Sonno v. American Intl. Life Assur. Co. of N. Y., 148 A.D.2d 800, 802, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 612). Plaintiff did not allege that defendant led him to believe that it manufactured the product. The evidence establishes that plaintiff had "knowledge of the true facts", thus precluding reliance upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel ( Holm v. C.M.P. Sheet Metal, 89 A.D.2d 229, 235). We therefore modify the order in appeal No. 1 by granting defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint. We modify the order in appeal No. 2 by denying plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint.