In Salinas v World Houseware Producing Co. et al., Case Index No. 107662/2010 (N.Y. Supreme Court, App. Div., Nov. 20, 2018), the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained while using a pot holder. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The main issue below was that the plaintiff?s deposition testimony as to how the accident occurred was inconsistent with the opinions of her expert on deposition. The summary judgment was affirmed on appeal, with the Court stating, simply and quite succinctly:
Where the conclusion of an expert relies upon facts contrary to the plaintiff?s testimony, the affirmation will fail to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment ? Here, the validity of plaintiff?s experts? opinions rely upon the assumption that the subject potholder caught fire after contacting the heating element of plaintiff?s oven, a fact plaintiff specifically denied several times during her deposition. Plaintiff was not equivocal at her deposition, nor did she seek to correct her testimony at any time thereafter.
(citations omitted).
The lead defendant, World Houseware Producing Co., was represented by our very own TAA member Thomas Lynch, of Lynch Rowin, in New York. Congratulations Tom.