Kunzig v. Nassau County

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kunzig v. Nassau County

78 A.D.2d 693, 432 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13213

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 693 (Kunzig v. Nassau County) 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

Kunzig v. Nassau County, 78 A.D.2d 693, 432 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring that defendant Nassau County and/or defendant Nassau County OAS Motor Equipment must defend and indemnify plaintiff in a certain personal injury action, said defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 14, 1980, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied, without costs or disbursements. The critical issue in this case is whether, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was acting in the discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment with the defendant County of Nassau (see General Municipal Law, § 50-b). This question is ordinarily one for the trier of the fact (see Riviello v Waldron/ 47 NY2d 297) and we see nothing which [694]*694removes this case from the ordinary rule. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a judgment declaring that defendant Nassau County and/or defendant Nassau County OAS Motor Equipment must defend and indemnify plaintiff in a certain personal injury action, said defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 14, 1980, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied, without costs or disbursements. The critical issue in this case is whether, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was acting in the discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment with the defendant County of Nassau (see General Municipal Law, § 50-b). This question is ordinarily one for the trier of the fact (see Riviello v Waldron/ 47 NY2d 297) and we see nothing which [694]*694removes this case from the ordinary rule. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 693, 432 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunzig-v-nassau-county-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack