Warner v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warner v. New York Central Railroad

23 A.D.2d 642, 256 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4712

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 642 (Warner v. New York Central Railroad) 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

Warner v. New York Central Railroad, 23 A.D.2d 642, 256 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on May 19, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the first, separate and complete defense reinstated, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In reinstating the defense of release we do not reach or pass upon the merits of such defense. We say only, in the posture of the pleading on the record before us, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the inclusion of the pass provision in the bargaining contract with the plaintiff’s union represents a part of the defendant’s obligation for services rendered or to be rendered by plaintiff and could not be considered a possible gratuity. The nature of the pass and the scope of employment with respect to the pass and the injury -complained of, as indicated by the pleadings, raise triable factual issues. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [43 Misc 2d 848.].

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

Order, entered on May 19, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the first, separate and complete defense reinstated, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In reinstating the defense of release we do not reach or pass upon the merits of such defense. We say only, in the posture of the pleading on the record before us, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the inclusion of the pass provision in the bargaining contract with the plaintiff’s union represents a part of the defendant’s obligation for services rendered or to be rendered by plaintiff and could not be considered a possible gratuity. The nature of the pass and the scope of employment with respect to the pass and the injury -complained of, as indicated by the pleadings, raise triable factual issues. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [43 Misc 2d 848.].

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 642, 256 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-v-new-york-central-railroad-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack