Bauman v. Garfinkle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bauman v. Garfinkle

235 A.D.2d 245, 652 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 245 (Bauman v. Garfinkle) 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

Bauman v. Garfinkle, 235 A.D.2d 245, 652 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1996, which, in an action for medical malpractice seeking damages for, inter alia, lost wages, denied defendant’s motion to amend his answer to include an affirmative defense of setoff under General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a) for whatever damages for lost wages plaintiff might recover in a Federal court action she brought against her former employer, for breach of contract and violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Federal court claims for breach of contract and discrimination are not in tort. Accordingly, General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a) does not apply (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Keeling & Assocs., 20 F3d 1092, 1099), and the proposed amendment was properly rejected as insufficient as a matter of law. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1996, which, in an action for medical malpractice seeking damages for, inter alia, lost wages, denied defendant’s motion to amend his answer to include an affirmative defense of setoff under General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a) for whatever damages for lost wages plaintiff might recover in a Federal court action she brought against her former employer, for breach of contract and violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Federal court claims for breach of contract and discrimination are not in tort. Accordingly, General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a) does not apply (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Keeling & Assocs., 20 F3d 1092, 1099), and the proposed amendment was properly rejected as insufficient as a matter of law. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 245, 652 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauman-v-garfinkle-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack