The IAS Court correctly held that defendant's limited involvement in facilitating the sale of the allegedly defective machine that caused plaintiff's injury, a one-time situation in which defendant effectively brokered the sale of the machine from a previous owner to plaintiff's employer, imposed no duty upon defendant to make sure the machine was safe or to warn about potential hazards "that [were] not obvious or readily discernible" ( Sukljian v. Ross Son Co., 69 N.Y.2d 89, 97). Plaintiff's own deposition testimony established that he not only knew through experience of the danger of using the machine in the manner he did, but that such danger was indeed obvious ( see, Czerniejewski v. Steward-Glapat Corp., 236 A.D.2d 795; Schiller v. National Presto Indus., 225 A.D.2d 1053).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.