Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Claim of Bollard v. Engel 278 N.Y. 463

← Cases

Claim of Bollard v. Engel

278 N.Y. 463 Court N.Y. Decision date 1938-10-18 English

Contents

Majority

p. 463
In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Bollard, Respondent, against Louis Engel, Jr., Appellant, Impleaded with Another. State Industrial Board, Respondent.
Argued October 6, 1938;
decided October 18, 1938.
p. 465
James O. Moore and R. K. Humphrey for appellant.
The accident, causing death, did not arise “ out of and in the course of ” any service decedent was employed to render. (Matter of Clark v. Voorhees, 231 N. Y. 14 ; Matter of Lampert v. Siemons, 235 N. Y. 311 ; Matter of DeVoe v. New York State Railways, 218 N. Y. 318 ; Matter of Davidson v. Pansy Waist Co., 240 N. Y. 584 ; Matter of Priestly v. Hentz & Co., 258 N. Y. 618 ; Matter of McInerney v. Buffalo & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 225 N. Y. 130 ; Matter of Cunningham v. Hunterspoint Lumber & Supply Co., 256 N. Y. 574 ; Matter of Carroll v. Verway Printing Co., 254 N. Y. 598 ; Rosenberg v. Syracuse Newspapers, Inc., 248 App. Div. 294 ; Matter of Turner v. Cathedral Pub. Co., 268 N. Y. 656 ; Matter of Jakeway v. Bauer Co., 218 App. Div. 302 ; Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 263 N. Y. 10 ; Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 N. Y. 582 ; Matter of Rayfield v. Ford Motor Sales Co., 266 N. Y. 556 ; Matter of Grathwohl v. Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc., 243 N. Y. 567 ; Matter of Marks v. Gray, 251 N. Y. 90 .) The so-called admission in the first report has been explained and is contrary to the fact. (Gangi v. Fradus, 227 N. Y. 452 ; Wachtel v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 266 N. Y. 345 .)
John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.
The injuries resulting in the death of decedent arose out of and in the course of the employment. (Matter of Younger v. Motor Car Transportation Co., 260 N. Y. 396 ; Matter of Bergman v. Buffalo Dry Dock, 269 N. Y. 150 ; Matter of Schwimmer v. Kammerman & Kaminsky, 262 N. Y. 104 ; Matter of Frank v. Economy Sales Co., 274 N. Y. 515 ; Matter of Mowen v. Chase Nat. Bank, 277 N. Y. 135 ; Matter of Domres v. Syracuse Safe Co., 240 N. Y. 611 ; Matter of Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v. Oceanic Service Corp., 275 N. Y. 562 ; Matter of Faulkner v.
p. 466
Stratton-Amsterdam Corp., 245 N. Y, 542 ; Matter of Atkins v. Joelson Enterprise, 232 App, Div. 856 ; 258 N. Y. 538 .)
Noel S. Symons for claimant, respondent.
The evidence establishes that the risk to which the deceased wag exposed was the direct result of his employment- (Matter of Marks v, Gray, 251 N. Y. 90 ; Dennis v. White & Co., A. C. 479; Matter of Schwimmer v. Kammerman & Kaminsky, 262 N. Y. 104 ; Matter of Domres v. Syracuse Safe Co., 240 N. Y. 611 ; Matter of Harby v. Marwell Bros., 235 N. Y. 504 ; Matter of Tannebaum. v. Perfect Tailoring Co., 243 N. Y. 577 ; Rosenthal v. Prudential Ins. Co., 242 App. Div. 741 ; Treiber v. Charity Organization Society, 241 App. Div. 779 ; Lehrbaum v. United Cigar Stores Co., 238 App. Div. 751 ; Prince v. Rutland-Sutt Garage Corp., 239 App. Div. 871 .)

We think the evidence warranted tfie finding that the employment was not interrupted while the deceased was returning from supper on the occasion in question, (Cf. Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 263 N. Y. 10 ; Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 N. Y. 582 .) The employer’s first report of injury was not without probative force merely because it was not made upon personal knowledge (Gangi v. Fradus, 227 N. Y. 452 , 456, 457).

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Crane, Ch, J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubrs, Loeghran, Finch and Rjkpey, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Cases cited