Eldridge v. Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eldridge v. Pearson

261 A.D. 1103, 27 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8979

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

DecidedApril 28, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 1103 (Eldridge v. Pearson) 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

Eldridge v. Pearson, 261 A.D. 1103, 27 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover for property damage, brought by the plaintiffs, as owners of an automobile which was involved in a collision with an automobile owned by the county of Westchester and operated by the individual defendant, a county employee. Order of the County Court of Westchester County granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike out three affirmative defenses in defendant’s amended answer reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a common-law action against the defendant municipal employee; they, however, must comply with the statutory conditions regulating the maintenance of such an action. (Laws of 1931, chap. 561, as amd. by Laws of 1940, chap. 97.) The defenses are predicated on a failure to comply with the statute and, therefore, are valid. It is within legislative competence to attach a condition to the maintenance of a common-law action as well as a statutory action. (Reining v. City of Buffalo, 102 N. Y. 308.) The statutory conditions apply alike to actions against the municipal corporation as well as actions against a “ servant or employee thereof.” (See Kaplan v. City of Poughkeepsie, 279 N. Y. 153.) Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

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

Action to recover for property damage, brought by the plaintiffs, as owners of an automobile which was involved in a collision with an automobile owned by the county of Westchester and operated by the individual defendant, a county employee. Order of the County Court of Westchester County granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike out three affirmative defenses in defendant’s amended answer reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a common-law action against the defendant municipal employee; they, however, must comply with the statutory conditions regulating the maintenance of such an action. (Laws of 1931, chap. 561, as amd. by Laws of 1940, chap. 97.) The defenses are predicated on a failure to comply with the statute and, therefore, are valid. It is within legislative competence to attach a condition to the maintenance of a common-law action as well as a statutory action. (Reining v. City of Buffalo, 102 N. Y. 308.) The statutory conditions apply alike to actions against the municipal corporation as well as actions against a “ servant or employee thereof.” (See Kaplan v. City of Poughkeepsie, 279 N. Y. 153.) Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1103, 27 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eldridge-v-pearson-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack