Mitchell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. City of New York

44 A.D.2d 852, 355 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914

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

DecidedMay 28, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 852 (Mitchell 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

Mitchell v. City of New York, 44 A.D.2d 852, 355 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 21, 1972, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer to the complaint of plaintiff William Mitchell,- without prejudice to renewal at Trial Term. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The amended answer must be served within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The proposed amendment of appellant’s answer so as to permit appellant affirmatively to plead that plaintiff William Mitchell is limited to recovery of benefits allowed under the Workmen’s Compensation Law should have been granted, since the amendment sets forth a legally sufficient defense (De Giuseppe v. City of New York, 273 App. Div. 1010, mot. for lv. to app. den. 298 N. Y. 932; Rauch v. Jones, 4 N Y 2d 592; Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 11, 29). The policy of our courts is to liberally permit amendments of pleadings unless the rights of a party are substantially prejudiced thereby (CPLR 3025). No such prejudice appears here. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 21, 1972, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer to the complaint of plaintiff William Mitchell,- without prejudice to renewal at Trial Term. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The amended answer must be served within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The proposed amendment of appellant’s answer so as to permit appellant affirmatively to plead that plaintiff William Mitchell is limited to recovery of benefits allowed under the Workmen’s Compensation Law should have been granted, since the amendment sets forth a legally sufficient defense (De Giuseppe v. City of New York, 273 App. Div. 1010, mot. for lv. to app. den. 298 N. Y. 932; Rauch v. Jones, 4 N Y 2d 592; Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 11, 29). The policy of our courts is to liberally permit amendments of pleadings unless the rights of a party are substantially prejudiced thereby (CPLR 3025). No such prejudice appears here. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 852, 355 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack