Stanorski v. Byrne Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanorski v. Byrne Bros.

82 A.D.2d 746, 440 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14376

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

DecidedJune 11, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 746 (Stanorski v. Byrne Bros.) 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

Stanorski v. Byrne Bros., 82 A.D.2d 746, 440 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Di Fede, J.), entered February 9, 1981, denying the motion of defendant Byrne Brothers, Inc., for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. Without any opposition to the motion Byrne Brothers, Inc., established that it is a corporate entity separate and apart from Byrne Car and Leasing Co., Inc., the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. While, admittedly, a Byrne Brothers’ employee was operating the vehicle at the time, he was not doing so in the course of his employment or in connection with any business of the employer. On this record no factual issue exists as to Byrne Brothers’ liability, and its motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Birns, Sandler, Sullivan and Carro, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Di Fede, J.), entered February 9, 1981, denying the motion of defendant Byrne Brothers, Inc., for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. Without any opposition to the motion Byrne Brothers, Inc., established that it is a corporate entity separate and apart from Byrne Car and Leasing Co., Inc., the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. While, admittedly, a Byrne Brothers’ employee was operating the vehicle at the time, he was not doing so in the course of his employment or in connection with any business of the employer. On this record no factual issue exists as to Byrne Brothers’ liability, and its motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Birns, Sandler, Sullivan and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 746, 440 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanorski-v-byrne-bros-nyappdiv-1981.