Lundeby v. Doty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lundeby v. Doty

256 A.D. 1105, 11 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6305

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

DecidedApril 24, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 1105 (Lundeby v. Doty) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1105, 11 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundeby-v-doty-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack