Zahn v. Anglim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zahn v. Anglim

265 A.D.2d 215, 696 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10364

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 215 (Zahn v. Anglim) 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

Zahn v. Anglim, 265 A.D.2d 215, 696 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about July 7, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the cross motion of defendant United Pilots, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that even if defendant Anglim were considered an employee of defendant United Pilots, [216]*216United Pilots would still not be answerable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the conduct of Anglim about which plaintiff complains since Anglim was not acting within the scope of his employment when he struck plaintiff with his vehicle after leaving a social event (see, Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467). We further find that in any event Anglim was not an employee of United Pilots. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about July 7, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the cross motion of defendant United Pilots, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that even if defendant Anglim were considered an employee of defendant United Pilots, [216]*216United Pilots would still not be answerable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the conduct of Anglim about which plaintiff complains since Anglim was not acting within the scope of his employment when he struck plaintiff with his vehicle after leaving a social event (see, Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467). We further find that in any event Anglim was not an employee of United Pilots. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 215, 696 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zahn-v-anglim-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack