Opinion ID: 1400724
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sukljian

Text: The leading New York case on the ordinary/occasional seller distinction, and the one on which Weyerhaeuser relies heavily, is Sukljian v. Charles Ross & Son Co., 69 N.Y.2d 89, 511 N.Y.S.2d 821, 503 N.E.2d 1358. In that case, General Electric Corporation (GE) purchased a grinding mill for about $4,000, had the manufacturer install a safety switch and removable feed hopper, used the machine for about eleven years, and then sold it in a surplus sale. The mill was the only piece of equipment of its kind sold at this sale, the terms of which were as is, where is. Bidders were invited to inspect the machine, and were told that there were no warranties on the equipment. There was some evidence that the sale was advertised in newspapers and magazines. The mill was sold for $35, and thereafter passed through various handsincluding a used equipment dealer that rebuilt the machine to its original specifications, removing the safety switch and feed hopperbefore eventually being sold to the plaintiff's employer. Id. at 92-94, 511 N.Y.S.2d at 822-23, 503 N.E.2d 1358. The plaintiff injured his hand while using the mill and sued the manufacturer as well as the intermediate seller who had rebuilt it. GE was impleaded on a strict liability theory and moved for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing the strict liability claim on the ground that the company was an occasional seller of grinding mills. The Supreme Court granted this branch of the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed. Id. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed as well, holding that there was no showing that General Electric was regularly engaged in the business of selling the equipment in issue. Id. at 96, 511 N.Y.S.2d at 824, 503 N.E.2d 1358. The Court relied on the facts that: (1) the machine was sold by GE after more than 11 years in use; (2) the surplus sale was on an as is, where is basis; (3) purchasers were invited to inspect the property before buying and were denied any warranties; and (4) the price was $35, less than one percent of GE's own purchase price for the equipment. Id. The Court referenced the dictum in Galindo, but ultimately concluded that, [e]ven if we were to recognize that liability might be imposed in a case such as hypothesized in Galindo i.e., regular, periodic dispositions of sawmill equipment, a division devoted to selling that equipment, widespread advertising, and substantial revenues from that activitythis record contains no such facts. Id. at 96-97, 511 N.Y.S.2d 821, 503 N.E.2d 1358; 511 N.Y.S.2d at 824, 503 N.E.2d 1358 (citations omitted).