Giliberti v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giliberti v. City of New York

23 A.D.2d 666, 257 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4722

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 666 (Giliberti v. City of New York) 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

Giliberti v. City of New York, 23 A.D.2d 666, 257 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendants Delong Realty Corporation and Emenee Industries, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 28, 1964, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer so as to plead, on behalf of defendant Emenee Industries, Inc., a defense based upon section 11 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, to the effect that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is under the provisions of that statute. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The amended answer shall be served within 30 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the denial of the motion by the Special Term was an improvident exercise of discretion (Dalton v. Michelin, 18 A D 2d 1138; Van Wie V. Gridley & Son, 21 A D 2d 842; Morris v. Luck, 28 Mise 2d 831; Mitchell V, A. A. Truck Renting Gorp., 9 A D 2d 682). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, 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 injury, defendants Delong Realty Corporation and Emenee Industries, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 28, 1964, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer so as to plead, on behalf of defendant Emenee Industries, Inc., a defense based upon section 11 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, to the effect that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is under the provisions of that statute. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The amended answer shall be served within 30 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the denial of the motion by the Special Term was an improvident exercise of discretion (Dalton v. Michelin, 18 A D 2d 1138; Van Wie V. Gridley & Son, 21 A D 2d 842; Morris v. Luck, 28 Mise 2d 831; Mitchell V, A. A. Truck Renting Gorp., 9 A D 2d 682). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 666, 257 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giliberti-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1965.