From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malinka v. Mugavero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 12, 1967
27 A.D.2d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

January 12, 1967

Appeal from the Monroe County Court.

Present — Williams, P.J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, defendant's motion granted and judgment granted in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff's complaint, all without costs. Memorandum: Appellant and respondent are coemployees of an employer who maintains a lot adjacent to its plant for the parking of employees' automobiles. The action is to recover damages from defendant for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of a collision of their automobiles in the parking lot while they were on their way to work. The parties were acting in the course of their employment at the time of the accident. ( Kunze v. Jones, 6 A.D.2d 888, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 1152; Roberts v. Gagnon, 1 A.D.2d 297; Chadwick v. Clerk, 19 A.D.2d 679; Smithline v. Ghessi, 25 A.D.2d 841.) Plaintiff is, therefore, limited to the workman's compensation benefits and cannot maintain this action against his fellow employee. (Workman's Compensation Law, § 29, subd. 6.)


Summaries of

Malinka v. Mugavero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 12, 1967
27 A.D.2d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Malinka v. Mugavero

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH MALINKA, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE MUGAVERO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 12, 1967

Citations

27 A.D.2d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Husted v. Seneca Steel Service

As a general rule, the hazards of travel on public highways are risks of life in general and not within the…

Wiley Mfg. Co. v. Wilson

Judge Smith there said for the Court: See, e.g., Saala v. McFarland, 63 Cal.2d 124, 403 P.2d 400, 45…