Ramirez v. Armstrong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. Armstrong

242 A.D.2d 871, 665 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10411

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 871 (Ramirez v. Armstrong) 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

Ramirez v. Armstrong, 242 A.D.2d 871, 665 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants leave to serve an amended answer asserting the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, rearg dismissed 45 NY2d 966). Plaintiff may not claim prejudice or surprise resulting from the tardy assertion of the defense because she was aware of her employment status from the outset and had received workers’ compensation benefits (see, Caceras v Zorbas, 74 NY2d 884, 885). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Amend Pleading.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants leave to serve an amended answer asserting the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, rearg dismissed 45 NY2d 966). Plaintiff may not claim prejudice or surprise resulting from the tardy assertion of the defense because she was aware of her employment status from the outset and had received workers’ compensation benefits (see, Caceras v Zorbas, 74 NY2d 884, 885). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Amend Pleading.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 871, 665 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-armstrong-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack