Lundeby v. Doty

256 A.D. 1105, 11 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6305
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 1939·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, as resettled, denying plaintiff’s [1106]*1106motion to strike from the answer the fourth separate defense, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, on the authority of Van Wormer v. Arnold (255 App. Div. 233). It appears from the pleadings, and is assumed by the parties, that at the time of the accident the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendant were coemployees. The relationship of employer and employee did not exist. The word “ employed,” as used in the fifth paragraph of the complaint, is deemed to mean “ engaged.” It was improper to consider the affidavit submitted by the defendant. On this motion only the pleadings are involved. (Romaneck v. Bauer, 250 App. Div. 734.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Lundeby v. Doty, 256 A.D. 1105, 11 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

256 A.D. 1105 (Lundeby v. Doty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frick v. Horton
21 A.D.2d 212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)