Brown v. Micheletti
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
97 A.D.2d 529, 468 N.Y.S.2d 160 (1983)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Curtis Brown (plaintiff) sued Henry Micheletti and others (collectively, Micheletti) (defendants) to recover, among other things, damages for personal injuries. Micheletti asserted the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense. During pretrial proceedings, Brown moved to dismiss Micheletti’s workers’-compensation defense, but the Special Term court denied Brown’s motion in light of the existence of triable issues implicated by Brown’s motion. However, the Special Term court ruled that Brown could renew his motion before the Trial Term court. After a jury was empaneled, the parties unsuccessfully tried to stipulate to sufficient facts to allow the trial court to decide Brown’s motion. The trial court then conducted a purported preliminary hearing without the jury to receive evidence regarding unstipulated facts, after which the trial court granted Brown’s motion to strike the workers’-compensation defense and denied Micheletti’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on the Workers’ Compensation Law. The trial court’s ruling was reflected in a paper stating that (1) Brown moved pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 4401 (judgment during trial), (2) Micheletti cross-moved pursuant to § 4401 and CPLR § 3212 (summary judgment), (3) the supreme court held an immediate hearing, (4) the supreme court granted Brown’s motion and denied Micheletti’s motion, and (5) the court stayed the trial pending appeal. Micheletti appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.