Culkin v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.
This text of 180 A.D.2d 617 (Culkin v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered July 12, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
After informing plaintiff that her employment at defendant Chase Manhattan Bank was being terminated, plaintiff’s supervisor, defendant Heineman, allegedly tried to prevent plaintiff from retrieving her personal belongings by assaulting her. The IAS court properly denied Chase’s motion for summary judgment, there being a question of fact as to whether Heineman was acting within the scope of her employment (Sims v Bergamo, 3 NY2d 531). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
180 A.D.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culkin-v-chase-manhattan-bank-n-a-nyappdiv-1992.