From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bonavita v. McNicholas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2010
72 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2008-10264.

April 20, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated September 30, 2008, which granted the motion of the defendants Irving McNicholas and Professional Exterminating Co., Inc., for leave to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense that the action is barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Schrier Fiscella Sussman, LLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Richard E. Schrier and Aaron M. Ryne of counsel), for appellants.

Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Rebecca K. Devlin and Michael G. Kruzynski of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Miller, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents' motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend their answer to assert an affirmative defense that the action is barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, as the proposed amendment would not cause prejudice or surprise and is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit ( see CPLR 3025 [b]; Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 22-23; Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-407; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229; Brown v Collora, 278 AD2d 266, 267).

[Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 32814(U).]


Summaries of

Bonavita v. McNicholas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2010
72 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Bonavita v. McNicholas

Case Details

Full title:GARY BONAVITA et al., Appellants, v. IRVING McNICHOLAS et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 2010

Citations

72 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3260
898 N.Y.S.2d 866

Citing Cases

Rankel v. Cnty. of Westchester

Accordingly, qualified immunity is an appropriate defense if there was an objectively reasonable basis for…

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn

Although Defendants argue in part based upon the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law,…