Freeney v. Macko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freeney v. Macko

176 A.D.2d 1196, 576 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13846

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 1196 (Freeney v. Macko) 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

Freeney v. Macko, 176 A.D.2d 1196, 576 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs were injured on April 28, 1987 when the vehicle in which they were riding was struck by a bus owned by C.N.Y. Centro, Inc. (Centro) and operated by defendant Gary Macko. Plaintiffs commenced a negligence action against Centro on July 22, 1988, which was dismissed as untimely under the applicable one year Statute of Limitations for tort suits against a public authority (see, Public Authorities Law § 1342 [2]). On June 16, 1989 plaintiffs commenced the instant action against Macko individually and as an employee of Centro.

Supreme Court erred in denying Macko’s motion to dismiss the action as time-barred. Since Macko is entitled to indemnification from Centro, Centro is the real party in interest and the short Statute of Limitations applicable to Centro is also applicable to Macko, as an employee (see, Albano v Hawkins, 82 AD2d 871). Section 17 of the Public Officers Law is not applicable (see, Niemczyk v Pawlak, 98 Misc 2d 532, 536). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, A. P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs were injured on April 28, 1987 when the vehicle in which they were riding was struck by a bus owned by C.N.Y. Centro, Inc. (Centro) and operated by defendant Gary Macko. Plaintiffs commenced a negligence action against Centro on July 22, 1988, which was dismissed as untimely under the applicable one year Statute of Limitations for tort suits against a public authority (see, Public Authorities Law § 1342 [2]). On June 16, 1989 plaintiffs commenced the instant action against Macko individually and as an employee of Centro.

Supreme Court erred in denying Macko’s motion to dismiss the action as time-barred. Since Macko is entitled to indemnification from Centro, Centro is the real party in interest and the short Statute of Limitations applicable to Centro is also applicable to Macko, as an employee (see, Albano v Hawkins, 82 AD2d 871). Section 17 of the Public Officers Law is not applicable (see, Niemczyk v Pawlak, 98 Misc 2d 532, 536). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, A. P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 1196, 576 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeney-v-macko-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack