Montauban v. Haitian Transfer Express Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montauban v. Haitian Transfer Express Co.

128 A.D.2d 595, 513 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44285

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 595 (Montauban v. Haitian Transfer Express Co.) 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

Montauban v. Haitian Transfer Express Co., 128 A.D.2d 595, 513 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death and assault, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 27, 1986, as denied her motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant [596]*596Epic Protection and Intelligence System, Ltd., on the first and second causes of action stated in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The papers submitted by the parties on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment clearly show the existence of an issue of fact as to whether the employee of the defendant Epic Protection and Intelligence System, Ltd., was acting within the scope of his employment when he shot and killed the plaintiff’s decedent (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297). It was therefore proper to deny the motion. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death and assault, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 27, 1986, as denied her motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant [596]*596Epic Protection and Intelligence System, Ltd., on the first and second causes of action stated in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The papers submitted by the parties on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment clearly show the existence of an issue of fact as to whether the employee of the defendant Epic Protection and Intelligence System, Ltd., was acting within the scope of his employment when he shot and killed the plaintiff’s decedent (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297). It was therefore proper to deny the motion. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 595, 513 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montauban-v-haitian-transfer-express-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack