As such, Safeway maintains that the "grave injury" requirement is applicable to the second third-party action since there was no action pending against Leadcare as a party defendant prior to September 10, 1996. However, contrary to Safeway's contention, pursuant to Majewski, the "grave injury" requirement is applicable only to actions commenced by a plaintiff-employee against third parties after September 10, 1996. Applying Majewski, the courts in this department have unanimously ruled that where the underlying or main action was commenced before September 10, 1996, the "grave injury" requirement is inapplicable to any third-party claim interposed by a timely-joined defendant, even if the third-party action was commenced after the effective date of the Act ( see Hundley v. Prince St. Assoc., 307 AD2d 252, 254; Williamsv. Bonowicz, 296 AD2d 401; Whitmore v. Anthony Russo, Inc., 266 AD2d 282; Esposito v. Bob Iko Excavation, 258 AD2d 555; Maher v. Whitehead, 254 AD2d 263). We note that in Majewski, the plaintiff commenced an action against the named party defendant before September 10, 1996, and the defendant (third-party plaintiff) subsequently impleaded the plaintiff's employer before that date.

We initially find that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 Work. Comp., as amended, is applicable in this case where the main action, that is, the plaintiff's action against Equipment, was commenced after its effective date. In Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist. ( 91 N.Y.2d 577, supra), the Court of Appeals held that the amended statute is to be applied prospectively to cases in which the main action is instituted after September 10, 1996 (see, Smith v. Xaverian High School, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Mar. 6, 2000]; Browning v. County Fence Co., 259 A.D.2d 578; Esposito v. Bob Iko Excavation, 258 A.D.2d 555). Importantly, in Majewski, the Court of Appeals specifically rejected Equipment's present claim that the amended statute should not be applied where, as here, the employee plaintiff is injured before its effective date.

We initially find that Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as amended, is applicable in this case where the main action, that is, the plaintiff's action against Equipment, was commenced after its effective date. In Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist. ( 91 N.Y.2d 577, supra), the Court of Appeals held that the amended statute is to be applied prospectively to cases in which the main action is instituted after September 10, 1996 (see, Smith v. Xaverian High School, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Mar. 6, 2000]; Browning v. County Fence Co., 259 A.D.2d 578; Esposito v. Bob Iko Excavation, 258 A.D.2d 555). Importantly, in Majewski, the Court of Appeals specifically rejected Equipment's present claim that the amended statute should not be applied where, as here, the employee plaintiff is injured before its effective date.

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the third-party action pursuant to the Omnibus Worker's Compensation Reform Act (Workers' Compensation Law § 11, L 1996, ch 635, as amended) (hereinafter the Act). While the third-party action was commenced after the effective date of the Act, the main action was commenced by the plaintiffs before the effective date. Accordingly, the Act does not bar the third-party action (see, Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577, 590; see also, Browning v. County Fence Company, 259 A.D.2d 578 [2d Dept., Mar. 15, 1999]; Esposito v. Bob Iko Excavation, 258 A.D.2d 555 [2d Dept., Feb. 16, 1 999]; Maher v. Whitehead, 254 A.D.2d 263; Blessinger v. Estee Lauder Cos., 246 A.D.2d 363 ; Caponi v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 177 Misc.2d 47, 49). FRIEDMANN, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.