Husted v. Vermilyea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Husted v. Vermilyea

278 A.D.2d 895, 718 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13533

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 895 (Husted v. Vermilyea) 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

Husted v. Vermilyea, 278 A.D.2d 895, 718 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained in an automobile accident. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Clinton’s Ditch Cooperative Co., Inc. (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it. Defendant established as a matter of law that defendant Nelson G. Vermilyea was not its employee at the time of the accident, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, there is no basis for the imposition of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior (see, Gorea v Glover, 249 AD2d 887). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained in an automobile accident. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Clinton’s Ditch Cooperative Co., Inc. (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it. Defendant established as a matter of law that defendant Nelson G. Vermilyea was not its employee at the time of the accident, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, there is no basis for the imposition of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior (see, Gorea v Glover, 249 AD2d 887). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 895, 718 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/husted-v-vermilyea-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack