Goodleaf v. Tzivos Hashem, Inc.
This text of 68 A.D.3d 817 (Goodleaf v. Tzivos Hashem, Inc.) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 A.D.3d 817, 889 N.Y.2d 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodleaf-v-tzivos-hashem-inc-nyappdiv-2009.