Fener v. Chapman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fener v. Chapman

274 A.D. 776, 81 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3274

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

DecidedJune 21, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 776 (Fener v. Chapman) 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

Fener v. Chapman, 274 A.D. 776, 81 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In Mazzaredo v. Levine (ante, p. 122, decided herewith) the court was unanimous that subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law is not a bar to a coemployee who is suing for assault. On the authority of that case, the order Appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the plaintiff-appellant’s motion granted to strike out the “ First Separate and Distinct Defense” contained in paragraphs 5th to 8th, inclusive, of defendant’s answer, which alleges that the assault was committed by a fellow servant and that the remedy by workmen’s compensation is therefore exclusive under subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

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

In Mazzaredo v. Levine (ante, p. 122, decided herewith) the court was unanimous that subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law is not a bar to a coemployee who is suing for assault. On the authority of that case, the order Appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the plaintiff-appellant’s motion granted to strike out the “ First Separate and Distinct Defense” contained in paragraphs 5th to 8th, inclusive, of defendant’s answer, which alleges that the assault was committed by a fellow servant and that the remedy by workmen’s compensation is therefore exclusive under subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 776, 81 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fener-v-chapman-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack