Kawecki v. McAllister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kawecki v. McAllister

221 A.D.2d 597, 635 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12443

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 597 (Kawecki v. McAllister) 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

Kawecki v. McAllister, 221 A.D.2d 597, 635 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover dam[598]*598ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered July 25, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original order dated November 4, 1993, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There is no dispute that the vehicle which struck the plaintiff Joseph S. Kawecki was driven by a co-employee, the defendant, and that the accident occurred on their employer’s premises. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). The plaintiffs contend that, although the defendant was a co-employee, he was acting outside the scope of his employment because he violated traffic safety rules promulgated for the protection of the public. We find this contention to be without merit (see, e.g., Matter of Rosebrook v Glen & Mohawk Milk Assocs., 40 AD2d 928, affd 33 NY2d 964; see generally, Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; see, e.g., Kunze v Jones, 6 AD2d 888, affd 8 NY2d 1152; Roberts v Gagnon, 1 AD2d 297). O’Brien,. J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover dam[598]*598ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered July 25, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original order dated November 4, 1993, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There is no dispute that the vehicle which struck the plaintiff Joseph S. Kawecki was driven by a co-employee, the defendant, and that the accident occurred on their employer’s premises. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). The plaintiffs contend that, although the defendant was a co-employee, he was acting outside the scope of his employment because he violated traffic safety rules promulgated for the protection of the public. We find this contention to be without merit (see, e.g., Matter of Rosebrook v Glen & Mohawk Milk Assocs., 40 AD2d 928, affd 33 NY2d 964; see generally, Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; see, e.g., Kunze v Jones, 6 AD2d 888, affd 8 NY2d 1152; Roberts v Gagnon, 1 AD2d 297). O’Brien,. J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 597, 635 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kawecki-v-mcallister-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack