Maher v. Whitehead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maher v. Whitehead

254 A.D.2d 263, 678 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10116

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 263 (Maher v. Whitehead) 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

Maher v. Whitehead, 254 A.D.2d 263, 678 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered July 3, 1997, as denied their motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the Omnibus Worker’s Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635, § 2), is inapplicable under the circumstances presented (see, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577; cf., Morales v Gross, 230 AD2d 7; see also, Blessinger v Estee Lauder Cos.,. 246 AD2d 363; Caponi v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 177 Misc 2d 47; Delacruz v Wistyn, NYLJ, Nov. 3, 1997, at 27, col 6; Seymour v Balata Belting Co., 174 Misc 2d 677). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, 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 third-party defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered July 3, 1997, as denied their motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the Omnibus Worker’s Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635, § 2), is inapplicable under the circumstances presented (see, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577; cf., Morales v Gross, 230 AD2d 7; see also, Blessinger v Estee Lauder Cos.,. 246 AD2d 363; Caponi v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 177 Misc 2d 47; Delacruz v Wistyn, NYLJ, Nov. 3, 1997, at 27, col 6; Seymour v Balata Belting Co., 174 Misc 2d 677). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 263, 678 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maher-v-whitehead-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack