Manzoni v. Hoffarth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manzoni v. Hoffarth

134 A.D.2d 838, 522 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51010

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 838 (Manzoni v. Hoffarth) 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

Manzoni v. Hoffarth, 134 A.D.2d 838, 522 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs negligence action against a coemployee was not barred by the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The record clearly establishes that at the time of this accident, plaintiff was crossing a public street on his way to work when he was struck by defendant, who was driving to work in his vehicle but was approximately one-half mile from the building where he worked and the parking lot he intended to use. The hazards of travel on public highways are a risk of life in general and are not within the scope of employment within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law (Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 50 AD2d 76, 78, affd 41 NY2d 140). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — strike affirmative defense.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs negligence action against a coemployee was not barred by the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The record clearly establishes that at the time of this accident, plaintiff was crossing a public street on his way to work when he was struck by defendant, who was driving to work in his vehicle but was approximately one-half mile from the building where he worked and the parking lot he intended to use. The hazards of travel on public highways are a risk of life in general and are not within the scope of employment within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law (Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 50 AD2d 76, 78, affd 41 NY2d 140). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — strike affirmative defense.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 838, 522 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manzoni-v-hoffarth-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack