A prior motion for summary judgment was premature, given that disclosure had not yet been completed ( see 273 A.D.2d 162). Having now obtained the materials necessary to resolve previously open questions of fact, defendants' motion for summary judgment, based on a more detailed government-contractor defense, was appropriate.
Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the grant of leave for defendants to amend their answer, inasmuch as the former has been on notice, for more than 10 years, that leave was previously granted to assert a more particularized affirmative defense on whether the helicopters in question conformed to Government specifications and whether modification or alterations had been made in the systems employed. The newly amended affirmative defenses satisfied the three-pronged test of Government approval of reasonably precise specifications, conformity to those specifications, and a warning to the Government about dangers known to the contractor in the use of the equipment ( Boyle v. United Tech. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 512). Summary judgment was thus properly granted.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
M-656 M-822 M-943 — Stajano, et al. v. United Tech. Corp., et al.
Motions seeking leave to strike record, enlarge record and strike brief and for other related relief denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.