How have the courts dealt with a motion to dismiss an action brought by defendant in a fishing hook case?

At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint contending the hook which injured her was a replacement part and, therefore, that it was not liable under the substantial modification rule of Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div., 49 N.Y.2d 471, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440, supra. The court denied the motion, stating plaintiff made out a prima facie case because defective design, not defective manufacture, was involved. The court reasoned that if the jury found the replacement part was substantially the same as the original, that its design was defective and that it caused plaintiff's injuries, she would be entitled to a verdict.