Legal Opinion
Cruickshank v. Dukes
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided April 11, 2001Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Order unanimously reversed without costs and defendant’s motion for leave to amend the answer is granted.
Defendant’s motion to amend her answer to include the affirmative defense of exclusivity of workers’ compensation is predicated on her claim that plaintiff’s injuries occurred in the course of plaintiff’s special employment with Queensboro Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (hereinafter Queensboro) and were allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant, who was a coemployee of plaintiff at Queensboro. Additionally, defendant contends that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Murray v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Naso v. LafataNew York Court of Appeals · 1958
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.