Rojas v. Long Island Water Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rojas v. Long Island Water Corp.

227 A.D.2d 462, 642 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5133

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

DecidedMay 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 462 (Rojas v. Long Island Water Corp.) 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

Rojas v. Long Island Water Corp., 227 A.D.2d 462, 642 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from [463]*463an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered July 12, 1995, which denied their motion to strike the defendant’s second, third, and fourth affirmative defenses and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on res judicata grounds.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted, the defendant’s cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs’ cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) was not dismissed on the merits by our decision in Rojas v County of Nassau (210 AD2d 390) (hereinafter Rojas I). Our decision on that appeal noted that the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, as pleaded, failed to comply with Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. (81 NY2d 494), which was decided during the pendency of the Rojas I appeal. We specifically noted that the alleged Industrial Code violations that were argued on appeal in Rojas I were not considered (Rojas v County of Nassau, supra). The new action, which was timely commenced pursuant to CPLR 205 (a), and which alleges various Industrial Code violations, presents new issues that had not been previously litigated. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable here. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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 [463]*463an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered July 12, 1995, which denied their motion to strike the defendant’s second, third, and fourth affirmative defenses and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on res judicata grounds.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted, the defendant’s cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs’ cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) was not dismissed on the merits by our decision in Rojas v County of Nassau (210 AD2d 390) (hereinafter Rojas I). Our decision on that appeal noted that the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, as pleaded, failed to comply with Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. (81 NY2d 494), which was decided during the pendency of the Rojas I appeal. We specifically noted that the alleged Industrial Code violations that were argued on appeal in Rojas I were not considered (Rojas v County of Nassau, supra). The new action, which was timely commenced pursuant to CPLR 205 (a), and which alleges various Industrial Code violations, presents new issues that had not been previously litigated. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable here. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 462, 642 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rojas-v-long-island-water-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack