Garvey v. A. O. Feidelson, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garvey v. A. O. Feidelson, Inc.

273 A.D. 1018, 79 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5814

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

DecidedMay 17, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 1018 (Garvey v. A. O. Feidelson, Inc.) 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

Garvey v. A. O. Feidelson, Inc., 273 A.D. 1018, 79 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained when the infant plaintiff was struck by an automobile owned and operated by defendant Ayer, an employee of the appellant A. 0. Feidelson, Inc., judgment as against A. 0. Feidelson, Inc., reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and' the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. In our opinion the proof established that at the time the accident happened defendant Ayer was not acting within the scope of his employment, but was engaged in an independent mission of his own. (Reilly v. Connable, 214 N. Y. 586; Benevento v. Poertner Motor Car Co., 235 N. Y. 125; O’Brien v. Stern Brothers, 223 N. Y. 290; Rosenberg v. Syracuse Newspapers, Inc., 248 App. Div. 294, 296, and cases there cited; Marconi v. Becci, 223 App. Div. 858.) In any event, a new trial would be granted because, in our opinion, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained when the infant plaintiff was struck by an automobile owned and operated by defendant Ayer, an employee of the appellant A. 0. Feidelson, Inc., judgment as against A. 0. Feidelson, Inc., reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and' the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. In our opinion the proof established that at the time the accident happened defendant Ayer was not acting within the scope of his employment, but was engaged in an independent mission of his own. (Reilly v. Connable, 214 N. Y. 586; Benevento v. Poertner Motor Car Co., 235 N. Y. 125; O’Brien v. Stern Brothers, 223 N. Y. 290; Rosenberg v. Syracuse Newspapers, Inc., 248 App. Div. 294, 296, and cases there cited; Marconi v. Becci, 223 App. Div. 858.) In any event, a new trial would be granted because, in our opinion, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 1018, 79 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garvey-v-a-o-feidelson-inc-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack