Biney v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Biney v. Rodriguez

262 A.D.2d 592, 691 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7608

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

DecidedJune 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 592 (Biney v. Rodriguez) 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

Biney v. Rodriguez, 262 A.D.2d 592, 691 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated April 13, 1998, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to amend her answer to interpose an affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant leave to amend her answer to interpose an affirmative defense based on Workers’ Compensation, as she failed to proffer sufficient evidence to support the claim that the plaintiff was her special employee (see, Sidor v Zuhoski, 257 AD2d 564; Alejandro v Riportella, 250 AD2d 556; see also, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557; Gonzalez v Lovett Assocs., 228 AD2d 342). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated April 13, 1998, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to amend her answer to interpose an affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant leave to amend her answer to interpose an affirmative defense based on Workers’ Compensation, as she failed to proffer sufficient evidence to support the claim that the plaintiff was her special employee (see, Sidor v Zuhoski, 257 AD2d 564; Alejandro v Riportella, 250 AD2d 556; see also, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557; Gonzalez v Lovett Assocs., 228 AD2d 342). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 592, 691 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biney-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack