The employer's reliance upon Matter of Hampton v Kelly ( 33 A.D.2d 856) is misplaced because there "[i]t [was] abundantly clear from the record that decedent used his car * * * for personal reasons" (supra, at 856) and "if decedent had been returning from a delivery * * * the result might [have been] different" (supra, at 857). We conclude that the Board's finding that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment is supported by substantial evidence and should, therefore, be affirmed (see, Matter of Dorman v New Process Gear Div. Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.2d 8, 9, affd 35 N.Y.2d 975; Matter of Love v N YS. Craig School, 42 A.D.2d 796, affd 34 N.Y.2d 680; Matter of Donnell v Waccabuc Country Club, 29 A.D.2d 1022; Matter of O'Donnell v Board of Educ., 15 A.D.2d 600, 601). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers' Compensation Board. Kane, J.P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

On this appeal, the employer and its carrier contend solely that the board erred in ruling that claimant's accidental injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, and we find their arguments unpersuasive. Given the undisputed facts of this case as set forth above, claimant was obviously injured accidentally while driving his automobile on a direct route from his employer's dinner meeting, which he was required to attend in Queens, to his West Haverstraw home, and such being the case, the board was clearly justified in concluding that he had sustained a compensable injury (cf. Matter of Dorman v New Process Gear Div. Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.2d 8, affd 35 N.Y.2d 975; Matter of Church v Worthington Corp., 12 A.D.2d 571, mot for lv to app den 9 N.Y.2d 609). In so ruling, we deem it irrelevant that on his direct route home claimant made two stops, one of which was at The Bronx store, to drop off fellow employees, and we also find that Matter of Neff v Tek Bearing Co. ( 64 A.D.2d 740), relied upon by appellants, does not require a contrary result.

In addition, the compensability of claimant's injuries is unaffected by the fact that the accident occurred, not on the playing field, but while claimant was traveling to the place where the softball game was to be played. Risks incidental to the journey to and from the actual activity beneficial to the employer resulting in injuries are accidents arising out of and in the course of the employment (Matter of Dorman v New Process Gear Div. Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.2d 8, affd 35 N.Y.2d 975; Matter of Dodge v Wm. J. Keller, Inc., 279 App. Div. 959, affd 304 N.Y. 792; 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 22.23). The decision should be affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board against the self-insured employer.

The benefit to the employer was as much an incident of the team practice as it was of "league" games in the context of this case. It is the employment aspect of the nonwork activity that gives rise to liability and not the direct and official involvement of management at the moment of injury (see Matter of Dorman v New Process Gear Div. Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.2d 8, affd 35 N.Y.2d 975). Based upon the present factual pattern and well-established legal precedent, the board's decision is premised on substantial evidence, and, therefore, should be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board against the self-insured employer.

The questions to be decided are whether there is substantial evidence to support the board's finding that claimant met with accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and the adequacy of the medical proof establishing the causal relationship between the emotional strain and the cardiac event (Matter of Millar v Town of Newburgh, 43 A.D.2d 641; cf. Matter of McCormick v Green Bus Lines, 29 N.Y.2d 246). Since firemen on duty are required to be available at all times to respond to an alarm, it is in the employer's interest to provide kitchen facilities within the fire station. Thus, claimant was in his work environment and the altercation must be deemed to have occurred in the course of his employment (Matter of Dorman v New Process Gear Div. Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.2d 8, affd 35 N.Y.2d 975). Unlike Matter of Millar (supra), the stair climbing and the altercation herein went beyond "irritations" usually associated with one's employment and constituted emotional stress and strain with respect to this claimant that must be equated with an industrial accident (Matter of Schuren v Wolfson, 30 N.Y.2d 90). Next, two qualified cardiologists gave divergent views as to the relationship of the emotional strain caused by the argument and step climbing and claimant's myocardial infarction.

Pursuant to the board's decision, the referee then found notice and causal relationship and awarded compensation benefits, which decision and award were affirmed on May 30, 1975. On this appeal, appellants contend that the decision should be reversed because the finding of the board of accidental injury is not supported by substantial evidence and the finding by the board that the carrier waived notice under section 18 Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law constitutes reversible error. It is well settled that the determination of the board must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Dorman v New Process GearDiv. Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.2d 8, affd 35 N.Y.2d 975; Matter of Gore v New York Air Brake Co., 33 A.D.2d 851). Claimant's testimony as to his work activities on the day in question was substantially corroborated by the testimony of his foreman. The work-related nature of his injury was reported by the claimant to his doctor less than a month after his accident.

Unlike the situation in Matter of Koperda v Waterbury Sons ( 27 A.D.2d 968) and Matter of Hill v McFarland-Johnson, Engrs. ( 25 A.D.2d 899), the picnic was not paid for by the employer and there was no encouragement for employees to attend from its supervisors. The recent case of Matter of Dorman v New Process Gear Div. Chrysler Corp. ( 44 A.D.2d 8, affd 35 N.Y.2d 975) is inapplicable since it dealt with functions organized by a management club which had a distinctive employment relationship which furthered the interests of the employer. The permissive attitude of the employer in regard to the various activities of the employees as to the posting of notices and the creation thereof does not appear to be of such a nature as to establish any substantial employer control over the activity.