From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bauman v. Garfinkle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

January 14, 1997.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1996, which, in an action for medical malpractice seeking damages for, inter alia, lost wages, denied defendant's motion to amend his answer to include an affirmative defense of setoff under General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a) for whatever damages for lost wages plaintiff might recover in a Federal court action she brought against her former employer, for breach of contract and violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.


The Federal court claims for breach of contract and discrimination are not in tort. Accordingly, General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a) does not apply ( see, Bankers Trust Co. v Keeling Assocs., 20 F3d 1092, 1099), and the proposed amendment was properly rejected as insufficient as a matter of law.


Summaries of

Bauman v. Garfinkle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Bauman v. Garfinkle

Case Details

Full title:DELORES BAUMAN et al., Respondents, v. B. MILTON GARFINKLE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 14, 1997

Citations

235 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
652 N.Y.S.2d 32

Citing Cases

Trzaska v. Cincinnati, Inc.

He released his employer from age discrimination, wrongful termination and other employment-related claims…

Sunlight Gen. Capital LLC v. CJS Invs. Inc.

Therefore, General Obligations Law §15-108, which provides for setoff based on a settlement with a different…