Lebron v. SML Veteran Leather, LLC
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.
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).
[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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.