Vos v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vos v. Fisher

21 A.D.2d 663, 249 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3741

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

DecidedMay 21, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 663 (Vos v. Fisher) 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

Vos v. Fisher, 21 A.D.2d 663, 249 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Amended judgment dismissing the complaint in a personal injury action during the course of the trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, decision was reserved on a motion to dismiss. However, in the course of defendant’s case, the trial court granted the motion. We hold that the plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to present a prima facie case that Williams was acting within the scope of his employment for defendant at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Whether the alleged negligence occurred at a time when the employee was [664]*664acting within the scope of his employment is a question of fact for the jury (Burns v. City of New York, 6 A D 2d 30, 35). It was error, therefore, to dismiss the complaint in the course of the trial. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., Val ente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Amended judgment dismissing the complaint in a personal injury action during the course of the trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, decision was reserved on a motion to dismiss. However, in the course of defendant’s case, the trial court granted the motion. We hold that the plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to present a prima facie case that Williams was acting within the scope of his employment for defendant at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Whether the alleged negligence occurred at a time when the employee was [664]*664acting within the scope of his employment is a question of fact for the jury (Burns v. City of New York, 6 A D 2d 30, 35). It was error, therefore, to dismiss the complaint in the course of the trial. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., Val ente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 663, 249 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vos-v-fisher-nyappdiv-1964.