Hyperlawhypertext legal database Williams v. Beemiller, Inc. 100 A.D.3d 155

← Cases

Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.

100 A.D.3d 155 Court Fourth Department, Decision date 2012-10-05 Docket Appeal No. 2 English

Delivered by Peradotto, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 155
[951 NYS2d 444]
Daniel Williams et al., Appellants, v Beemiller, Inc., Doing Business as Hi-Point, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, and United States of America, Intervenor-Respondent.
(Appeal No. 2.)
Fourth Department,
October 5, 2012
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Connors & Vilardo, LLP, Buffalo (James W. Grable, Jr. and Eric M. Soehnlein of counsel), and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Washington, D.C. (Jonathan E. Lowy, of the Washing
p. 156
ton, D.C. bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, White Plains (Scott C. Allan of counsel), for defendant-respondent Beemiller, Inc., Doing Business as Hi-Point.
Scott L. Braum & Associates, Ltd., Dayton, Ohio (Scott L. Braum, of the Ohio bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Damon Morey LLP, Buffalo (Hedwig M. Auletta of counsel), for defendant-respondent Charles Brown.
Pisciotti, Malsch & Buckley, P.C., White Plains (Jeffrey M. Malsch of counsel), for defendant-respondent MKS Supply, Inc.
William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney, Washington, D.C. (Benjamin S. Kingsley of counsel), for intervenor-respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Same opinion by Peradotto, J., as in Williams v Beemiller, Inc. ( 100 AD3d 143 [2012] [appeal No. 1]).

Centra, J.P, Garni, Bindley and Sconiers, JJ., concur.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Cases cited