Felder v. Wank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felder v. Wank

205 A.D.2d 581, 613 N.Y.S.2d 246

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

DecidedJune 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 581 (Felder v. Wank) 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

Felder v. Wank, 205 A.D.2d 581, 613 N.Y.S.2d 246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), entered November 23, 1992, as, upon reargument, granted the defendants’ motion to amend their answer.

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

When the defendants moved to amend their answer in order to withdraw their admission, the Statute of Limitations had already expired. Because the plaintiffs were no longer able to institute an action against the third-party defendant, Carl-stone Corporation, they contend that they were prejudiced by the granting of the defendants’ motion. We disagree.

The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they were, in fact, prejudiced by the granting of the defendants’ motion (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959). The injured plaintiff was employed by the Carlstone Corporation on the date of the accident and, accordingly, is precluded from instituting an action against the third-party defendant by the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation remedy. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), entered November 23, 1992, as, upon reargument, granted the defendants’ motion to amend their answer.

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

When the defendants moved to amend their answer in order to withdraw their admission, the Statute of Limitations had already expired. Because the plaintiffs were no longer able to institute an action against the third-party defendant, Carl-stone Corporation, they contend that they were prejudiced by the granting of the defendants’ motion. We disagree.

The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they were, in fact, prejudiced by the granting of the defendants’ motion (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959). The injured plaintiff was employed by the Carlstone Corporation on the date of the accident and, accordingly, is precluded from instituting an action against the third-party defendant by the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation remedy. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 581, 613 N.Y.S.2d 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felder-v-wank-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack