Legal Opinion

Caryl S. v. Child & Adolescent Treatment Services, Inc.

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

Decided April 25, 1997PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In May 1994 Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (Caryl S. v Child & Adolescent Treatment Servs., 161 Misc 2d 563). Two years later, defendants moved for renewal on the ground that one of the cases cited in the court’s decision, W. C. W. v Bird (840 SW2d 50 [Ct App Tex]), had been reversed on appeal (Bird v W.C.W., 868 SW2d 767 [Sup Ct Tex]). The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Although a motion to renew may be "based upon law not previously…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bird v. W.C.W.Texas Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. HermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. Caryl S. v. Child & Adolescent Treatment Services, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Johnston v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak)Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Washington Apts., L.P. v. Oetiker, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2013
  2. East Aurora Coop. Mkt., Inc. v. Red Brick Plaza LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API