CARYL v. CHILD ADOLESCENT TREATMENT SERVICES INC CSW CSW (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

CARYL S. and Wallace S., Respondents, v. CHILD & ADOLESCENT TREATMENT SERVICES, INC., Patricia Jones, CSW, and Jen Henry, CSW, Appellants.

Decided: April 25, 1997

Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, LAWTON, DOERR and FALLON, JJ.

Davis, Augello, Matteliano & Gersten, LLP by Joseph Matteliano, Buffalo, for Appellants. Birzon & Zakia, P.C. by Paul Birzon, Buffalo, for Respondents.

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, 614 N.Y.S.2d 661). 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 S.W.2d 50 (Ct. App. Tex.), had been reversed on appeal (Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767 [Tex.1994] ). The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Although a motion to renew may be “based upon law not previously considered” (Johnston v. National R.R. Passenger Corp. [Amtrak], 161 A.D.2d 288, 289, 555 N.Y.S.2d 62; see, Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. Herman, 101 A.D.2d 712, 475 N.Y.S.2d 955), the Bird case was neither controlling nor essential to the court's denial of the motion to dismiss (cf., Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. Herman, supra ).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network