Agostino v. Pennysaver Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Agostino v. Pennysaver Group, Inc.

284 A.D.2d 353, 725 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6048

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 353 (Agostino v. Pennysaver Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agostino v. Pennysaver Group, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 353, 725 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), dated September 7, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposing the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s employee was acting within the scope of employment when the employee’s vehicle struck her (see, Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467; Donitz v Mui, 247 AD2d 508; Howard v Hilton, 244 AD2d 912; Casimiro v Thayer, 229 AD2d 958). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), dated September 7, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposing the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s employee was acting within the scope of employment when the employee’s vehicle struck her (see, Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467; Donitz v Mui, 247 AD2d 508; Howard v Hilton, 244 AD2d 912; Casimiro v Thayer, 229 AD2d 958). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 353, 725 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agostino-v-pennysaver-group-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack