Caracciolo v. Furman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caracciolo v. Furman

29 A.D.2d 903, 287 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 903 (Caracciolo v. Furman) 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

Caracciolo v. Furman, 29 A.D.2d 903, 287 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal by the defendant Furman from an order of Special Term denying his motion to dismiss the complaint as to him on the ground that he and the plaintiff were coemployees at the time of plaintiff’s injury. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 29, subd. 6.) The record establishes without dispute that the appellant and the plaintiff were coemployees of General Electric Company and that as they were proceeding to work upon the employer’s premises the cars they were operating came into collision. The plaintiff seeks to recover from the appellant for alleged negligence causing personal injury. Under such circumstances the employees were within the course of their employment and the accident arose out of such employment. (Bozelle V. Bobertson, 29 A D 2d 589.) Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion to dismiss the complaint as to defendant Furman granted, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

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

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal by the defendant Furman from an order of Special Term denying his motion to dismiss the complaint as to him on the ground that he and the plaintiff were coemployees at the time of plaintiff’s injury. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 29, subd. 6.) The record establishes without dispute that the appellant and the plaintiff were coemployees of General Electric Company and that as they were proceeding to work upon the employer’s premises the cars they were operating came into collision. The plaintiff seeks to recover from the appellant for alleged negligence causing personal injury. Under such circumstances the employees were within the course of their employment and the accident arose out of such employment. (Bozelle V. Bobertson, 29 A D 2d 589.) Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion to dismiss the complaint as to defendant Furman granted, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 903, 287 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caracciolo-v-furman-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack