Legal Opinion
Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 20, 1989No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer alleging the affirmative defense that receipt of workers’ compensation benefits is plaintiff’s sole remedy. Leave to amend shall be freely granted and plaintiff has demonstrated no prejudice (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757; Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935). On this record there is an issue of fact…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McCaskey, Davies & Associates, Inc. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Braxton v. . MendelsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Brooks v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Claim of Abramson v. Long Beach Memorial HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Paris v. ReissAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998