context: The issue raised by this case is appropriate for certification. First, since Suklji-an, the New York Court of Appeals has not had an opportunity to address a case like the hypothetical posed by Galindo. Indeed, it appears to remain an open question in New York whether strict products liability can attach to a regular seller of used goods at all, let alone companies like the one envisioned by the Galindo court.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 881 F.Supp. 829, 836-41
citation_a.parenthetical: discussing cases extending strict liability to used goods dealers, including two Appellate Division cases
citation_a.sentence: See Stiles, 81 N.Y.2d at 951, 597 N.Y.S.2d at 667, 613 N.E.2d 572 (leaving open question whether used goods dealers may be held strictly liable); but see Gonzalez v. Rutherford Corp., 881 F.Supp. 829, 836-41 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (Raggi, /.) (discussing cases extending strict liability to used goods dealers, including two Appellate Division cases).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 597 N.Y.S.2d 667, 667
citation_b.parenthetical: leaving open question whether used goods dealers may be held strictly liable
citation_b.sentence: See Stiles, 81 N.Y.2d at 951, 597 N.Y.S.2d at 667, 613 N.E.2d 572 (leaving open question whether used goods dealers may be held strictly liable); but see Gonzalez v. Rutherford Corp., 881 F.Supp. 829, 836-41 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (Raggi, /.) (discussing cases extending strict liability to used goods dealers, including two Appellate Division cases).