Eidman v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eidman v. County of Monroe

177 A.D.2d 996, 578 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15752

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 996 (Eidman v. County of Monroe) 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

Eidman v. County of Monroe, 177 A.D.2d 996, 578 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s action against defendant Thorpe was not governed by a one year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 215 [1]). Since the duty imposed upon a Deputy Sheriff to use reasonable care in the operation of his motor vehicle is not a duty imposed upon him by his office, but instead is a duty imposed upon everyone who operates a motor vehicle, the shortened one year Statute of Limitations does not apply (Brady v Woodworth, 117 AD2d 995; Dixon v Seymour, 62 AD2d 444).

We also reject defendant Thorpe’s argument that plaintiff’s civil rights action (42 USC § 1983) must be dismissed. The record presents conflicting versions of the facts surrounding the accident sufficient to raise a factual issue regarding Thorpe’s state of mind at the time his patrol car struck plaintiff. Whether Thorpe acted intentionally is a factual question which precludes summary judgment (see, Slavin v Curry, 574 F2d 1256, reh denied 583 F2d 779; see generally, Trustees of Hamilton Coll, v Cunningham, 70 AD2d 1048, 1049). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan,. A. P. J., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s action against defendant Thorpe was not governed by a one year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 215 [1]). Since the duty imposed upon a Deputy Sheriff to use reasonable care in the operation of his motor vehicle is not a duty imposed upon him by his office, but instead is a duty imposed upon everyone who operates a motor vehicle, the shortened one year Statute of Limitations does not apply (Brady v Woodworth, 117 AD2d 995; Dixon v Seymour, 62 AD2d 444).

We also reject defendant Thorpe’s argument that plaintiff’s civil rights action (42 USC § 1983) must be dismissed. The record presents conflicting versions of the facts surrounding the accident sufficient to raise a factual issue regarding Thorpe’s state of mind at the time his patrol car struck plaintiff. Whether Thorpe acted intentionally is a factual question which precludes summary judgment (see, Slavin v Curry, 574 F2d 1256, reh denied 583 F2d 779; see generally, Trustees of Hamilton Coll, v Cunningham, 70 AD2d 1048, 1049). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan,. A. P. J., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 996, 578 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eidman-v-county-of-monroe-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack