Case ID: ad2d_242/html/0863-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond T. Matie et al., Respondents, v Sealed Air Corporation et al., Defendants. Sealed Air Corporation, 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.