Goodleaf v. Tzivos Hashem, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodleaf v. Tzivos Hashem, Inc.

68 A.D.3d 817, 889 N.Y.2d 478

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 8, 2009·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the third-party defendant Arnold Steel Company (hereinafter Arnold) for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it. In response to Arnold’s prime facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a “grave injury” as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., 3 NY3d 408 [2004]; DePaola v Albany Med. Coll., 40 AD3d 678 [2007]; O’Berg v MacManus Group, Inc., 33 AD3d 599 [2006]; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487, 487-488 [2001]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in [818]*818denying that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for leave to amend the third-party complaint to add a cause of action for contractual indemnification against Arnold, since the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit (see Mackenzie v Croce, 54 AD3d 825, 826 [2008]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Covello, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the third-party defendant Arnold Steel Company (hereinafter Arnold) for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it. In response to Arnold’s prime facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a “grave injury” as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., 3 NY3d 408 [2004]; DePaola v Albany Med. Coll., 40 AD3d 678 [2007]; O’Berg v MacManus Group, Inc., 33 AD3d 599 [2006]; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487, 487-488 [2001]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in [818]*818denying that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for leave to amend the third-party complaint to add a cause of action for contractual indemnification against Arnold, since the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit (see Mackenzie v Croce, 54 AD3d 825, 826 [2008]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Covello, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Goodleaf v. Tzivos Hashem, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 817, 889 N.Y.2d 478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 817 (Goodleaf v. Tzivos Hashem, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related