Sarra v. Hankewycz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarra v. Hankewycz

230 A.D.2d 780, 646 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8380

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

DecidedAugust 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 780 (Sarra v. Hankewycz) 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

Sarra v. Hankewycz, 230 A.D.2d 780, 646 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Eastflo, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 17, 1995, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, there is an issue of fact as to whether the nonmoving defendant Michael Hankewycz was.an independent contractor or an employee of Eastflo, Inc. Where the record raises "a question with respect to the nature of the relationship between the tortfeasor and his alleged principal, summary judgment is not warranted” (Carrion v Orbit Messenger, 82 NY2d 742, 744). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.

Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Eastflo, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 17, 1995, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, there is an issue of fact as to whether the nonmoving defendant Michael Hankewycz was.an independent contractor or an employee of Eastflo, Inc. Where the record raises "a question with respect to the nature of the relationship between the tortfeasor and his alleged principal, summary judgment is not warranted” (Carrion v Orbit Messenger, 82 NY2d 742, 744). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.

Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 780, 646 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarra-v-hankewycz-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack