Valee v. Macina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valee v. Macina

280 A.D.2d 598, 720 N.Y.S.2d 815, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1666

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 598 (Valee v. Macina) 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

Valee v. Macina, 280 A.D.2d 598, 720 N.Y.S.2d 815, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Harvest Plumbing & Heating, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated February 22, 2000, which, upon a decision of the same court (Sklaver, J.H.O.), made after a hearing, determined that the defendant Vincent Hacina was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant.

The appeal from the order determining that the defendant Vincent Hacina was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident must be dismissed, as findings of fact and conclusions of law are not independently appealable (see, Napolitano v Kaddoch, 275 AD2d 445; Naar v Litwak & Co., 260 AD2d 613; Benedetto v O’Grady, 10 AD2d 628). Bracken, Acting P. J., Goldstein, H. Hiller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Harvest Plumbing & Heating, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated February 22, 2000, which, upon a decision of the same court (Sklaver, J.H.O.), made after a hearing, determined that the defendant Vincent Hacina was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant.

The appeal from the order determining that the defendant Vincent Hacina was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident must be dismissed, as findings of fact and conclusions of law are not independently appealable (see, Napolitano v Kaddoch, 275 AD2d 445; Naar v Litwak & Co., 260 AD2d 613; Benedetto v O’Grady, 10 AD2d 628). Bracken, Acting P. J., Goldstein, H. Hiller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 598, 720 N.Y.S.2d 815, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valee-v-macina-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack