Malinka v. Mugavero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malinka v. Mugavero

27 A.D.2d 691, 276 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5041

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 691 (Malinka v. Mugavero) 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

Malinka v. Mugavero, 27 A.D.2d 691, 276 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, defendant’s motion granted and judgment granted in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, all without costs. Memorandum: Appellant and respondent are coemployees of an employer who maintains a lot adjacent to its plant for the parking of employees’ automobiles. The action is to recover damages from defendant for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of a collision of their automobiles in the parking lot while they were on their way to work. The parties were acting in the course of their employment at the time of the accident. (Kunze v. Jones, 6 A D 2d 888, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1152; Roberts v. Gagnon, 1 A D 2d 297; Chadwick v. Clerk, 19 A D 2d 679; Smithline v. Ghessi, 25 A D 2d 841.) Plaintiff is, therefore, limited to the workman’s compensation benefits and cannot maintain this action against his fellow employee. (Workman’s Compensation Law, § 29, subd. 6.) (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, denying motion to dismiss complaint.) Present—• Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, defendant’s motion granted and judgment granted in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, all without costs. Memorandum: Appellant and respondent are coemployees of an employer who maintains a lot adjacent to its plant for the parking of employees’ automobiles. The action is to recover damages from defendant for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of a collision of their automobiles in the parking lot while they were on their way to work. The parties were acting in the course of their employment at the time of the accident. (Kunze v. Jones, 6 A D 2d 888, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1152; Roberts v. Gagnon, 1 A D 2d 297; Chadwick v. Clerk, 19 A D 2d 679; Smithline v. Ghessi, 25 A D 2d 841.) Plaintiff is, therefore, limited to the workman’s compensation benefits and cannot maintain this action against his fellow employee. (Workman’s Compensation Law, § 29, subd. 6.) (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, denying motion to dismiss complaint.) Present—• Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 691, 276 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malinka-v-mugavero-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack