Opinion
November 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.).
The amended complaint in the main action alleges that plaintiff was injured twice, first on the date of the automobile accident, and again, three months later, when the rear door of the automobile fell against her. Plaintiff alleges that the door did not stay open as the result of the faulty work of defendant Pete's Complete Auto Collision, which repaired the plaintiff's vehicle pursuant to an arrangement with defendant and third-party plaintiff SW Dodge. SW's third-party complaint alleges that plaintiff's second injury was caused by the faulty design or manufacture of the rear door of plaintiff's automobile.
SW Dodge failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact, the affidavit of its service manager expressing no more than the "`mere hope'" that evidence of Chrysler's faulty design or manufacture exists (Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 A.D.2d 609, 610). That hope is insufficient to defeat Chrysler's motion.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.