Sloane v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sloane v. City of New York

44 A.D.2d 853, 356 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4916

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

DecidedMay 28, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 853 (Sloane v. City of New York) 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

Sloane v. City of New York, 44 A.D.2d 853, 356 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 10, 1972 and February 14, 1972, respectively, the first denying its motion for summary judgment and the second denying its renewed motion for the same relief (improperly labeled as a motion to reargue). Orders reversed, on the law, without costs, and motions granted. The exclusive remedy available to plaintiff is under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 1, group 16, § 29, subd. 6; Matter of Chilk v. City of New York, 26 A D 2d 425, affd. 22 N Y 2d 661). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan 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, defendant appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 10, 1972 and February 14, 1972, respectively, the first denying its motion for summary judgment and the second denying its renewed motion for the same relief (improperly labeled as a motion to reargue). Orders reversed, on the law, without costs, and motions granted. The exclusive remedy available to plaintiff is under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 1, group 16, § 29, subd. 6; Matter of Chilk v. City of New York, 26 A D 2d 425, affd. 22 N Y 2d 661). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 853, 356 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloane-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1974.