Carriero v. Iovino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carriero v. Iovino

281 A.D. 1052, 121 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302

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

DecidedMay 13, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 1052 (Carriero v. Iovino) 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

Carriero v. Iovino, 281 A.D. 1052, 121 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

— -Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Saratoga Special Term, which denied a motion to dismiss the complaint herein, under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. The complaint is laid in negligence arising out of an automobile accident. Defendant’s contention on the motion was that both parties were employees of the General Electric Company, engaged in the course of their employment at the time the accident happened, and that plaintiff’s sole remedy was under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The Special Term held that an issue of fact was presented as to whether plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment at the time the accident occurred. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — • Foster, P. J., Brewster, Coon, Halpern and Imrie. JJ.

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

— -Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Saratoga Special Term, which denied a motion to dismiss the complaint herein, under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. The complaint is laid in negligence arising out of an automobile accident. Defendant’s contention on the motion was that both parties were employees of the General Electric Company, engaged in the course of their employment at the time the accident happened, and that plaintiff’s sole remedy was under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The Special Term held that an issue of fact was presented as to whether plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment at the time the accident occurred. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — • Foster, P. J., Brewster, Coon, Halpern and Imrie. JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1052, 121 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carriero-v-iovino-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack