Goodwin v. Empire City Subway Co., Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodwin v. Empire City Subway Co., Ltd.

124 A.D.3d 559, 998 N.Y.S.2d 639

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2015

Docket14094N 152769/13

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 559 (Goodwin v. Empire City Subway Co., Ltd.) 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

Goodwin v. Empire City Subway Co., Ltd., 124 A.D.3d 559, 998 N.Y.S.2d 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered on or about January 29, 2014, which denied the unopposed motion by the City of New York and the New York City Department of Transportation (collectively the City) to amend the answer to assert certain affirmative defenses and counterclaims, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant so much of the City’s motion as sought to assert affirmative defenses and cross claims other than affirmative defenses based on Workers’ Compensation Law, accord and satisfaction and the emergency doctrine, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The affirmative defenses based on Workers’ Compensation Law, accord and satisfaction and the emergency doctrine are waived by the City. In the absence of any opposition, either to the motion below or to this appeal, it cannot be said that the proposed amended affirmative defenses or cross claims are “palpably insufficient” or “patently devoid of merit” (see Kocourek v Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 AD3d 502, 504-505 [1st Dept 2011]; Perrotti v Becker, Glynn, Melamed & Muffly LLP, 82 AD3d 495, 498 [1st Dept 2011]), especially at this early stage of discovery. Nor can it be said that plaintiff or codefendants were surprised or prejudiced by proposed amendments, as no party felt it necessary to oppose the motion. There is certainly no “indication that the [opposing party] has been hindered in the preparation of [its] case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] position” (Kocourek v Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 AD3d at 504). The City *560 was not required to establish the merits of each of the affirmative defenses or cross claims (see Perrotti v Becker, Glynn, Melamed & Muffly LLP, 82 AD3d at 498), so long as they were not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and did not surprise or prejudice any opposing party.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered on or about January 29, 2014, which denied the unopposed motion by the City of New York and the New York City Department of Transportation (collectively the City) to amend the answer to assert certain affirmative defenses and counterclaims, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant so much of the City’s motion as sought to assert affirmative defenses and cross claims other than affirmative defenses based on Workers’ Compensation Law, accord and satisfaction and the emergency doctrine, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The affirmative defenses based on Workers’ Compensation Law, accord and satisfaction and the emergency doctrine are waived by the City. In the absence of any opposition, either to the motion below or to this appeal, it cannot be said that the proposed amended affirmative defenses or cross claims are “palpably insufficient” or “patently devoid of merit” (see Kocourek v Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 AD3d 502, 504-505 [1st Dept 2011]; Perrotti v Becker, Glynn, Melamed & Muffly LLP, 82 AD3d 495, 498 [1st Dept 2011]), especially at this early stage of discovery. Nor can it be said that plaintiff or codefendants were surprised or prejudiced by proposed amendments, as no party felt it necessary to oppose the motion. There is certainly no “indication that the [opposing party] has been hindered in the preparation of [its] case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] position” (Kocourek v Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 AD3d at 504). The City *560 was not required to establish the merits of each of the affirmative defenses or cross claims (see Perrotti v Becker, Glynn, Melamed & Muffly LLP, 82 AD3d at 498), so long as they were not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and did not surprise or prejudice any opposing party.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 559, 998 N.Y.S.2d 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-empire-city-subway-co-ltd-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack