Whitmore v. Anthony Russo, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whitmore v. Anthony Russo, Inc.

266 A.D.2d 282, 699 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 282 (Whitmore v. Anthony Russo, 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

Whitmore v. Anthony Russo, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 282, 699 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated August 26, 1998, which, upon reargument, granted the motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint, which motion had previously been denied by order of the same court dated September 3, 1997.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for reargument is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the third-party action pursuant to the Omnibus Worker’s Compensation Reform Act (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as amended by L 1996, ch 635) (hereinafter the Act). While the third-party action was commenced after the effective date of the Act, the main action was commenced by the plaintiffs before the effective date. Accordingly, the Act does not bar the third-party action (see, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, 590; see also, Browning v County Fence Co., 259 AD2d 578; Esposito v Iko Excavation, 258 AD2d 555; Maher v Whitehead, 254 AD2d 263; Blessinger v Estee Lauder Cos., 246 AD2d 363; Caponi v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 177 Misc 2d 47, 49). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, 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 defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated August 26, 1998, which, upon reargument, granted the motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint, which motion had previously been denied by order of the same court dated September 3, 1997.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for reargument is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the third-party action pursuant to the Omnibus Worker’s Compensation Reform Act (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as amended by L 1996, ch 635) (hereinafter the Act). While the third-party action was commenced after the effective date of the Act, the main action was commenced by the plaintiffs before the effective date. Accordingly, the Act does not bar the third-party action (see, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, 590; see also, Browning v County Fence Co., 259 AD2d 578; Esposito v Iko Excavation, 258 AD2d 555; Maher v Whitehead, 254 AD2d 263; Blessinger v Estee Lauder Cos., 246 AD2d 363; Caponi v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 177 Misc 2d 47, 49). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 282, 699 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitmore-v-anthony-russo-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack