From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kawecki v. McAllister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

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.


Summaries of

Kawecki v. McAllister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Kawecki v. McAllister

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH S. KAWECKI et al., Appellants, v. GUY J. McALLISTER, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 27, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 36

Citing Cases

Pesta v. Johnstown

With regard to the automobile policy, Supreme Court found applicable the exclusion for injuries resulting…