Majority
—In an action to recover dam
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 [6]). 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 As socs., 40 AD2d 928 , affd 33 NY2d 964 ; see generally, Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246 ). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; see, e.g., Kunze v Jones, 6 AD2d 888 , affd 8 NY2d 1152 ; Roberts v Gagnon, 1 AD2d 297 ). O’Brien,. J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Claim of Rosebrook v. Glen & Mohawk Milk Ass'n 40 AD2d 928 p. 598
- Claim of Rosebrook v. Glen & Mohawk Milk Ass'n 33 NY2d 964 p. 598
- Claim of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, Inc. 67 NY2d 246 p. 598
- Kunze v. Jones 8 NY2d 1152 p. 598
- Roberts v. Gagnon 1 AD2d 297 p. 598