Keleman v Quinton Fitness Equip., Inc.

Keleman v Quinton Fitness Equip., Inc. 2007 NY Slip Op 05150 [41 AD3d 172] Decided on June 12, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 12, 2007
Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson, Kavanagh, JJ.
1299
Index 121972/01

[*1]Barbara Keleman, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Quinton Fitness Equipment, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Akam Associates, Defendant.




Ginsberg & Broome, P.C., New York (Robert M. Ginsberg of
counsel), for appellant.
Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, New York (Timothy
J. McHugh of counsel), for Quinton Fitness Equipment, Inc.,
respondent.
Law Office of Vincent P. Crisci, New York (Stephanie Robbins
of counsel), for The 400 Central Park West Condominium and
Cooper Square Management LLC, respondents.
Bonner, Kiernan, Trebach & Crociata, New York (Lynda E.
Lieberhauser of counsel), for Fitness Lifestyle, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered January 16, 2007, which granted defendants-respondents' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that she fell off a treadmill when it suddenly increased in speed after her hand inadvertently struck the control panel's acceleration button, and submits an engineer's opinion that the treadmill was defectively designed in that its acceleration button was located only five inches from the right edge of the control panel where a user might be expected to hold onto the treadmill for balance. However, plaintiff, at her deposition, unequivocally stated that her hands did not touch the speed buttons on the treadmill's control panel just before the belt unexpectedly speeded up. Given such testimony, neither the alleged design defect, nor any failure to warn against holding onto the edges of the control panel, could have been a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff's attempt to defeat summary judgment with an affidavit in [*2]opposition re-characterizing the plain meaning of her testimony was properly rejected (see Blackmon v Dinstuhl, 27 AD3d 241 [2006]). We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 12, 2007

CLERK