With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to possess technical or scientific knowledge about the inner workings of the product, which would contravene the notice pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, even under the Iqbat-Twombly standard.” Id. (citing Ohuche, 2011 WL 2682133, at *2-3). “Moreover, it is well-settled that a plaintiff may rely upon the circumstances of an accident to prove the existence of a manufacturing defect if the product did not perform as intended and the possibility of other causes has been excluded.” Id. at *5 (citing Sanchez v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 0494(LMM), 2000 WL 968776, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2000)) (not requiring the plaintiffs to allege specific facts about the manufacturing process); see also Arnold v. Krause, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 58, 71 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (<HOLDING>), aff'd and adopted, 233 F.R.D. 126 (W.D.N.Y.

A: holding that plaintiffs amended complaint was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations where the amendment merely expanded on plaintiffs negligence theories and stating that in a tort action an amendment may vary the statement of the original complaint as to the manner in which the plaintiff was injured or as to the manner of the defendants breach of duty
B: holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed
C: holding that the plaintiffs allegations that the plaintiff was using the ladder at issue in the manner intended and for the purposes expected by the defendants and in a manner reasonably foreseeable to the defendants when the ladder collapsed and injured the plaintiff sufficiently established a prima facie case that the ladder was defectively manufactured
D: holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case
C.