Lebron v. SML Veteran Leather, LLC

5 N.E.3d 999, 22 N.Y.3d 1119
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 20, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 N.E.3d 999 (Lebron v. SML Veteran Leather, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lebron v. SML Veteran Leather, LLC, 5 N.E.3d 999, 22 N.Y.3d 1119 (N.Y. 2014).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Applying New Jersey law and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff (see Laidlow v Hariton Mach. Co., Inc., 170 NJ 602, 607, 790 A2d 884, 887 [2002]), defendant SML Veteran Leather, LLC demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant’s conduct constituted an intentional wrong under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act (see NJ Stat Ann § 34:15-8; compare Mull v Zeta Consumer Prods., 176 NJ 385, 392, 823 A2d 782, 786 [2003]; Laidlow, 170 NJ at 622, 790 A2d at 897-898).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

[1121]*1121On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC
135 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 N.E.3d 999, 22 N.Y.3d 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lebron-v-sml-veteran-leather-llc-ny-2014.