Hyperlawhypertext legal database Matie v. Sealed Air Corp. 242 A.D.2d 863

← Cases

Matie v. Sealed Air Corp.

242 A.D.2d 863 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1997-09-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 863
Raymond T. Matie et al., Respondents, v Sealed Air Corporation et al., Defendants. Sealed Air Corporation,
p. 864
Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Ferro Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
[665 NYS2d 360]

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: 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 AD2d 870 [decided herewith] ; Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 231 AD2d 102 ; Morales v Gross, 230 AD2d 7 ). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cases cited