Myung Soon Kim v. Hyunchul Chong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Myung Soon Kim v. Hyunchul Chong

8 A.D.3d 456, 778 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8479

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 456 (Myung Soon Kim v. Hyunchul Chong) 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

Myung Soon Kim v. Hyunchul Chong, 8 A.D.3d 456, 778 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 23, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense that the action was barred under the Workers’ Compensation Law and to dismiss the complaint on that ground.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants leave to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense that the action was barred under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A motion for leave to amend an answer to assert such a defense may be granted in the absence of prejudice or surprise even where, as here, it was first raised after the action was ready to proceed to trial (see Caceras v Zorbas, 74 NY2d 884 [1989]; Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 407 [1977]; Singh v Shafi, 252 AD2d 494, 495 [1998]; Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 208 [1997]). The plaintiffs failed to show prejudice or surprise resulting from the defendants’ delay in asserting the exclusivity of workers’ compensation as an affirmative defense. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Adams, Rivera and Lifson, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 23, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense that the action was barred under the Workers’ Compensation Law and to dismiss the complaint on that ground.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants leave to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense that the action was barred under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A motion for leave to amend an answer to assert such a defense may be granted in the absence of prejudice or surprise even where, as here, it was first raised after the action was ready to proceed to trial (see Caceras v Zorbas, 74 NY2d 884 [1989]; Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 407 [1977]; Singh v Shafi, 252 AD2d 494, 495 [1998]; Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 208 [1997]). The plaintiffs failed to show prejudice or surprise resulting from the defendants’ delay in asserting the exclusivity of workers’ compensation as an affirmative defense. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 456, 778 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myung-soon-kim-v-hyunchul-chong-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack