Pollini v. Fuller Road Fire Department

New York Court of Appeals

Pollini v. Fuller Road Fire Department

313 N.E.2d 793, 34 N.Y.2d 744, 357 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1594

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 313 N.E.2d 793 (Pollini v. Fuller Road Fire Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pollini v. Fuller Road Fire Department, 313 N.E.2d 793, 34 N.Y.2d 744, 357 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1594 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff is limited to his statutory remedy. The Hicksville Fire District can be considered a person or agency within the intendment of subdivision (3) of section 19 of the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law. We do not find, however, as that court did, any inconsistency in this result with that reached by the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Giuliano v. Town of Brunswick (32 A D 2d 705) where it was held that the injured fireman, employed by the Town of North Gfreenbush Fire District, could maintain an action against the Town of Brunswick. There, that section (Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law, § 19, subd. [3]) did not stand in plaintiff’s way because the defendant town (as opposed to the defendant fire district in the instant case) could in no respect be considered a “ person or agency ”. We would also remark that in Holland v. Baker (61 Misc 2d 201, affd. 33 A D 2d 626), where the plaintiff attempted to sue the political subdivision which his fire company served, the action was cor *746 rectly dismissed although the court mistakenly relied on subdivision (3) of section 19 rather than on subdivision (2).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Stevens concur; Judge Rabin taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

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

Memorandum. We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff is limited to his statutory remedy. The Hicksville Fire District can be considered a person or agency within the intendment of subdivision (3) of section 19 of the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law. We do not find, however, as that court did, any inconsistency in this result with that reached by the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Giuliano v. Town of Brunswick (32 A D 2d 705) where it was held that the injured fireman, employed by the Town of North Gfreenbush Fire District, could maintain an action against the Town of Brunswick. There, that section (Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law, § 19, subd. [3]) did not stand in plaintiff’s way because the defendant town (as opposed to the defendant fire district in the instant case) could in no respect be considered a “ person or agency ”. We would also remark that in Holland v. Baker (61 Misc 2d 201, affd. 33 A D 2d 626), where the plaintiff attempted to sue the political subdivision which his fire company served, the action was cor *746 rectly dismissed although the court mistakenly relied on subdivision (3) of section 19 rather than on subdivision (2).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Stevens concur; Judge Rabin taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 N.E.2d 793, 34 N.Y.2d 744, 357 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollini-v-fuller-road-fire-department-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack