Groth v. Masnakoff

New York Supreme Court

Groth v. Masnakoff

204 Misc. 268, 122 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1815

DecidedMay 25, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 204 Misc. 268 (Groth v. Masnakoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Groth v. Masnakoff, 204 Misc. 268, 122 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1815 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

Motion by the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action.

The plaintiffs bring their action against the defendant (third-party plaintiff) for personal injuries on the theory of the negligence of the third-party plaintiff (defendant) in the operation of an automobile owned and driven by the third-party plaintiff (defendant). At the time of the accident both were employed by the same employer. Plaintiff was operating an automobile owned by him.

If the third-party plaintiff (defendant) proves the allegation of his affirmative defense set forth in the answer (Workmen’s C/ompensation Law, § 29, subd. 6) there will be a complete bar [269]*269to any recovery as against him (Olmsted v. Teal, 275 App. Div. 887). In the event recovery is had against the third-party plaintiff (defendant) on the theory of his active negligence in the operation of the automobile, there can be no right over against the employer.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted. Submit order.

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

Hill, J.

Motion by the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action.

The plaintiffs bring their action against the defendant (third-party plaintiff) for personal injuries on the theory of the negligence of the third-party plaintiff (defendant) in the operation of an automobile owned and driven by the third-party plaintiff (defendant). At the time of the accident both were employed by the same employer. Plaintiff was operating an automobile owned by him.

If the third-party plaintiff (defendant) proves the allegation of his affirmative defense set forth in the answer (Workmen’s C/ompensation Law, § 29, subd. 6) there will be a complete bar [269]*269to any recovery as against him (Olmsted v. Teal, 275 App. Div. 887). In the event recovery is had against the third-party plaintiff (defendant) on the theory of his active negligence in the operation of the automobile, there can be no right over against the employer.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted. Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 Misc. 268, 122 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groth-v-masnakoff-nysupct-1953.