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.
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
242 A.D.2d 863665 N.Y.S.2d 360
Authorities cited
No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.