Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
There is no dispute that the vehicle which struck the plaintiff Joseph S. Kawecki was driven by a co-employee, the defendant, and that the accident occurred on their employer's premises. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Workers' Compensation Law § 29). The plaintiffs contend that, although the defendant was a co-employee, he was acting outside the scope of his employment because he violated traffic safety rules promulgated for the protection of the public. We find this contention to be without merit (see, e.g., Matter of Rosebrook v Glen Mohawk Milk Assocs., 40 A.D.2d 928, affd 33 N.Y.2d 964; see generally, Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 N.Y.2d 246). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Workers' Compensation Law § 29; see, e.g., Kunze v Jones, 6 A.D.2d 888, affd 8 N.Y.2d 1152; Roberts v Gagnon, 1 A.D.2d 297). O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.