From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Becker v. Taylor Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 2, 1926
217 App. Div. 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Opinion

July 2, 1926.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.

Bacon Tippett [ Clarence B. Tippett of counsel], for the appellants.

Arthur H. Wheaton for the claimant, respondent.

Albert Ottinger, Attorney-General [ E.C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the State Industrial Board.


The commutation was made for the purpose of enabling the claimant, a widow aged thirty-six years, with two children aged ten and six years, to purchase a three-family house in the city of Brooklyn.

The property under consideration is to be purchased for $14,750, on account of which $8,000 or practically all of the commuted award is to be applied, leaving thereon a first mortgage of $6,000 at five and one-half per cent interest and a second mortgage of $750 at six per cent interest. The annual interest payments, therefore, are to be $375. The taxes are $270, the insurance $20 and the cost of lighting halls $12. The foregoing total annual charges amount to $677. The property is at present rented at the rate of $1,680 annually, or about $1,000 in excess of the above-mentioned charges. The weekly compensation of the respondent amounts to $540 annually, or $460 less than she would receive from the net income of the property if the foregoing figures are complete. But no allowance has been made for repairs and it is assumed that the property will be constantly rented as at present. No evidence was offered in respect to these matters except that there is evidence that the property "is in fairly good condition." There is no other circumstance materially affecting the situation. Claimant will save nothing in the way of rent over what she now pays. Only exceptional circumstances can justify a departure from the general principle of periodical payments of compensation. On the evidence presented any substantial advantage to the claimant of a lump sum award is not apparent and it cannot be said to be in the interest of justice.

The award should be reversed and matter remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event.

All concur.

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event.


Summaries of

Matter of Becker v. Taylor Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 2, 1926
217 App. Div. 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)
Case details for

Matter of Becker v. Taylor Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of LOTTIE BECKER, Respondent, against TAYLOR…

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

Date published: Jul 2, 1926

Citations

217 App. Div. 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)
216 N.Y.S. 625

Citing Cases

Wulff v. Swanson

We do not find there is sufficient competent evidence that it is for the "best interests" as expressed by our…

Stolbert v. Walker Jamar Co.

Allen, Moser Marsalek for appellants. (1) The Circuit Court erred in approving and affirming the award or…