Hodges v. P.C. Richard & Son Service Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hodges v. P.C. Richard & Son Service Co.

59 A.D.3d 679, 873 N.Y.S.2d 490

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 679 (Hodges v. P.C. Richard & Son Service Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hodges v. P.C. Richard & Son Service Co., 59 A.D.3d 679, 873 N.Y.S.2d 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered April 7, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint and denied his cross motion to dismiss the defendants’ affirmative defense that the action is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]; Roberson v Moveway Transfer & Stor., 44 AD3d 839 [2007]; Ugijanin v 2 W. 45th St. Joint Venture, 43 AD3d 911 [2007]; Bailey v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 12 AD3d 545 [2004]; Causewell v Barnes & Noble Bookstores, 238 AD2d 536 [1997]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Eng, JJ., concur. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31036(11).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered April 7, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint and denied his cross motion to dismiss the defendants’ affirmative defense that the action is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]; Roberson v Moveway Transfer & Stor., 44 AD3d 839 [2007]; Ugijanin v 2 W. 45th St. Joint Venture, 43 AD3d 911 [2007]; Bailey v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 12 AD3d 545 [2004]; Causewell v Barnes & Noble Bookstores, 238 AD2d 536 [1997]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Eng, JJ., concur. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31036(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 679, 873 N.Y.S.2d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-pc-richard-son-service-co-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack