Kajo v. E. W. Howell Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kajo v. E. W. Howell Co., Inc.

120 A.D.3d 1195, 991 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 2014

Docket2012-03975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1195 (Kajo v. E. W. Howell Co., Inc.) 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

Kajo v. E. W. Howell Co., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 1195, 991 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Kramer, J.), dated February 7, 2012, which denied their motion for leave to renew that branch of their prior cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendants third-party plaintiffs E.W Howell Co., Inc., and Norwegian Christian Home and Health Center, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated November 28, 2006.

Ordered that the order dated February 7, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the decision in Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc. (13 NY3d 599 [2009]) created a change in the law that would alter the prior determination in this matter (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Kramer, J.), dated February 7, 2012, which denied their motion for leave to renew that branch of their prior cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendants third-party plaintiffs E.W Howell Co., Inc., and Norwegian Christian Home and Health Center, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated November 28, 2006.

Ordered that the order dated February 7, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the decision in Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc. (13 NY3d 599 [2009]) created a change in the law that would alter the prior determination in this matter (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1195, 991 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kajo-v-e-w-howell-co-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack