Cruz v. First Cardinal Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. First Cardinal Corp.

273 A.D.2d 233, 709 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6280

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

DecidedJune 5, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 233 (Cruz v. First Cardinal Corp.) 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

Cruz v. First Cardinal Corp., 273 A.D.2d 233, 709 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to approve the settlement of a third-party action nunc pro tunc, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered July 9, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that it was without authority to grant the petitioner’s application pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to approve a settlement nunc pro tunc, inasmuch as no third-party action had ever been commenced (see, Kosiorek v University of Rochester, 152 AD2d 927). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to approve the settlement of a third-party action nunc pro tunc, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered July 9, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that it was without authority to grant the petitioner’s application pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to approve a settlement nunc pro tunc, inasmuch as no third-party action had ever been commenced (see, Kosiorek v University of Rochester, 152 AD2d 927). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 233, 709 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-first-cardinal-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack