Opinion
November 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.
Present — Callahan, A.P.J., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff's action against defendant Thorpe was not governed by a one year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 215). Since the duty imposed upon a Deputy Sheriff to use reasonable care in the operation of his motor vehicle is not a duty imposed upon him by his office, but instead is a duty imposed upon everyone who operates a motor vehicle, the shortened one year Statute of Limitations does not apply (Brady v. Woodworth, 117 A.D.2d 995; Dixon v. Seymour, 62 A.D.2d 444).
We also reject defendant Thorpe's argument that plaintiff's civil rights action ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983) must be dismissed. The record presents conflicting versions of the facts surrounding the accident sufficient to raise a factual issue regarding Thorpe's state of mind at the time his patrol car struck plaintiff. Whether Thorpe acted intentionally is a factual question which precludes summary judgment (see, Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, reh denied 583 F.2d 779; see generally, Trustees of Hamilton Coll. v. Cunningham, 70 A.D.2d 1048, 1049).