Berotte v. Hiram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berotte v. Hiram

173 A.D.2d 754, 572 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797

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

DecidedMay 31, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D.2d 754 (Berotte v. Hiram) 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

Berotte v. Hiram, 173 A.D.2d 754, 572 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated November 16, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs motion to strike their second affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the plaintiff, a Nassau County police officer, was on duty at the time his vehicle was involved in a collision with that of the defendants, we find that his services were "sufficiently separate and apart from the negligent acts which caused his injuries” (Boglioli v Fletcher, 170 AD2d 425, 426) to permit him to maintain this action sounding, inter alia, in common-law negligence. Thus, the action is not barred by operation of the "fireman’s rule”, enunciated in Santangelo v State of New York (71 NY2d 393, 397-398), and the second affirmative defense, which relies upon the Santangelo doctrine, was properly stricken.

No other issue has been raised or considered. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, 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 injury, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated November 16, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs motion to strike their second affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the plaintiff, a Nassau County police officer, was on duty at the time his vehicle was involved in a collision with that of the defendants, we find that his services were "sufficiently separate and apart from the negligent acts which caused his injuries” (Boglioli v Fletcher, 170 AD2d 425, 426) to permit him to maintain this action sounding, inter alia, in common-law negligence. Thus, the action is not barred by operation of the "fireman’s rule”, enunciated in Santangelo v State of New York (71 NY2d 393, 397-398), and the second affirmative defense, which relies upon the Santangelo doctrine, was properly stricken.

No other issue has been raised or considered. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 754, 572 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berotte-v-hiram-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack