Froehle v. Hobart Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Froehle v. Hobart Corp.

270 A.D.2d 305, 704 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 305 (Froehle v. Hobart 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

Froehle v. Hobart Corp., 270 A.D.2d 305, 704 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), entered April 29, 1999, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as amended (L 1996, ch 635, § 2), is applicable here, since the action was com[306]*306menced after the effective date of the amendment (see, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, 590; Browning v County Fence Co., 259 AD2d 578). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), entered April 29, 1999, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as amended (L 1996, ch 635, § 2), is applicable here, since the action was com[306]*306menced after the effective date of the amendment (see, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, 590; Browning v County Fence Co., 259 AD2d 578). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 305, 704 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/froehle-v-hobart-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack