Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

MARIO POLLINI, Appellant, v. FULLER ROAD FIRE DEPARTMENT et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM. We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff is limited to his statutory remedy. The Hicksville Fire District can be considered a person or agency within the intendment of subdivision (3) of section 19 of the Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Law. We do not find, however, as that court did, any inconsistency in this result with that reached by the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Giuliano v. Town of Brunswick ( 32 A.D.2d 705) where it was held that the injured fireman, employed by the Town of North Greenbush Fire District, could maintain an action against the Town of Brunswick. There, that section (Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Law, § 19, subd. [3]) did not stand in plaintiff's way because the defendant town (as opposed to the defendant fire district in the instant case) could in no respect be considered a "person or agency". We would also remark that in Holland v. Baker ( 61 Misc.2d 201, affd. 33 A.D.2d 626), where the plaintiff attempted to sue the political subdivision which his fire company served, the action was correctly dismissed although the court mistakenly relied on subdivision (3) of section 19 rather than on subdivision (2).

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and STEVENS concur; Judge RABIN taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

POLLINI v. FULLER ROAD FIRE DEPT
(May 9, 1974)