Zurheide v. S-C Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zurheide v. S-C Associates, L.P.

248 A.D.2d 380, 669 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 380 (Zurheide v. S-C Associates, L.P.) 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

Zurheide v. S-C Associates, L.P., 248 A.D.2d 380, 669 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant AT&T Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered May 14, 1997, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as amended (L 1996, ch 635, § 2), is to be applied prospectively and is thus inapplicable here, where the underlying injury occurred before the effective date of the amendment (see, Morales v Gross, 230 AD2d 7; Delacruz v Wistyn, NYLJ, Nov. 3, 1997, at 27, col 6; Seymour v Balata Belting Co., 174 Misc 2d 677; see also, Massella v Partner Indus. Prods., 242 AD2d 870; Doria v Cooke Props., 245 AD2d 59; Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dish, 231 AD2d 102, 111).

Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, 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, the third-party defendant AT&T Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered May 14, 1997, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as amended (L 1996, ch 635, § 2), is to be applied prospectively and is thus inapplicable here, where the underlying injury occurred before the effective date of the amendment (see, Morales v Gross, 230 AD2d 7; Delacruz v Wistyn, NYLJ, Nov. 3, 1997, at 27, col 6; Seymour v Balata Belting Co., 174 Misc 2d 677; see also, Massella v Partner Indus. Prods., 242 AD2d 870; Doria v Cooke Props., 245 AD2d 59; Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dish, 231 AD2d 102, 111).

Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 380, 669 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zurheide-v-s-c-associates-lp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack