Fegley v Raymond Corp.

Holding The court modified the lower court’s order to reinstate design defect claims regarding the absence of a rear guard, finding that defendants failed to prove the buyer was actually aware of the optional safety feature. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on steering mechanism claims because defendants raised that argument for the first time in their reply papers.

The court’s words

A product that lacks an optional safety feature is not defectively designed if

2026 NY Slip Op 04659, at the official text

the buyer is thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the product and its use and is actually aware that the safety feature is available

2026 NY Slip Op 04659, at the official text

the function of [reply papers] is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant[s] and not to permit [them] to introduce new arguments in support of the motion

2026 NY Slip Op 04659, at the official text