Perrin v. Chase Equipment Leasing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrin v. Chase Equipment Leasing, Inc.

27 A.D.3d 1111, 810 N.Y.S.2d 711

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1111 (Perrin v. Chase Equipment Leasing, 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.

Bluebook

Perrin v. Chase Equipment Leasing, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 1111, 810 N.Y.S.2d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (John W. Grow, J), entered February 24, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendants Chase Equipment Leasing, Inc. and T-Line Service, Ltd., also known as T-Line Service, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them or, in the alternative, for leave to amend their answer to assert a defense based upon the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for [1112]*1112reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (John W. Grow, J), entered February 24, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendants Chase Equipment Leasing, Inc. and T-Line Service, Ltd., also known as T-Line Service, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them or, in the alternative, for leave to amend their answer to assert a defense based upon the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for [1112]*1112reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1111, 810 N.Y.S.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrin-v-chase-equipment-leasing-inc-nyappdiv-2006.