From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matie v. Sealed Air Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1997
242 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 30, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.


Supreme Court properly denied the motion of third-party defendant, Ferro Corporation, for leave to amend its answer to assert as a defense the recent amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and, upon the amendment of the answer, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Because the amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which became effective September 10, 1996, is prospective only, it does not apply to actions pending on that date (see, L 1996, ch 635, § 2; Massella v. Partner Indus. Prods., 242 A.D.2d 870 [decided herewith]; Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 231 A.D.2d 102; Morales v. Gross, 230 A.D.2d 7).


Summaries of

Matie v. Sealed Air Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1997
242 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matie v. Sealed Air Corporation

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND T. MATIE et al., Respondents, v. SEALED AIR CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 30, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 360

Citing Cases

Rickicki v. Borden Chemical

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ. Order unanimously affirmed with costs ( see,…

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Proj. Corp.

Finally, the court properly denied Casual Corner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party…