Correa v. Baptiste

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Correa v. Baptiste

303 A.D.2d 355, 755 N.Y.S.2d 655

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 355 (Correa v. Baptiste) 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

Correa v. Baptiste, 303 A.D.2d 355, 755 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, etc., the defendant Frederick R. Harris, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated September 12, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Frederick R. Harris, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

Generally, “[a]n employee driving to and from work is not acting within the scope of his employment because the element of control is lacking” (Tucker v Melendez, 278 AD2d 488 [2000]; see Donitz v Mui, 247 AD2d 508 [1998]; Cicatello v Sobierajski, 295 AD2d 974, 975 [2002]). Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the appellant established, as a matter of law, that it bore no liability for the fatal accident that occurred while its employee commuted to work (see Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467 [1969]; Tenczar v Richmond, 172 AD2d 952 [1991]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Tucker v Melendez, supra; Donitz v Mui, supra; Howard v Hilton, 244 AD2d 912 [1997]). As such, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, 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 and wrongful death, etc., the defendant Frederick R. Harris, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated September 12, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Frederick R. Harris, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

Generally, “[a]n employee driving to and from work is not acting within the scope of his employment because the element of control is lacking” (Tucker v Melendez, 278 AD2d 488 [2000]; see Donitz v Mui, 247 AD2d 508 [1998]; Cicatello v Sobierajski, 295 AD2d 974, 975 [2002]). Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the appellant established, as a matter of law, that it bore no liability for the fatal accident that occurred while its employee commuted to work (see Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467 [1969]; Tenczar v Richmond, 172 AD2d 952 [1991]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Tucker v Melendez, supra; Donitz v Mui, supra; Howard v Hilton, 244 AD2d 912 [1997]). As such, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 355, 755 N.Y.S.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/correa-v-baptiste-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack