From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bollard v. Engel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1938
278 N.Y. 463 (N.Y. 1938)

Summary

In Bollard the board found the incident compensable and the Court of Appeals in reversing the Appellate Division merely affirmed the factual findings of the board.

Summary of this case from Matter of Markowitz v. Mack Markowitz, Inc.

Opinion

Argued October 6, 1938

Decided October 18, 1938

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

James O. Moore and R.K. Humphrey for appellant.

John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General ( Roy Wiedersum of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent. Noel S. Symons for claimant, respondent.


We think the evidence warranted the 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, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN, FINCH and RIPPEY, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Matter of Bollard v. Engel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1938
278 N.Y. 463 (N.Y. 1938)

In Bollard the board found the incident compensable and the Court of Appeals in reversing the Appellate Division merely affirmed the factual findings of the board.

Summary of this case from Matter of Markowitz v. Mack Markowitz, Inc.
Case details for

Matter of Bollard v. Engel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of FRANCES BOLLARD, Respondent, against LOUIS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 18, 1938

Citations

278 N.Y. 463 (N.Y. 1938)
17 N.E.2d 130

Citing Cases

Matter of Purcell v. Hearn's Dept. Store

In cases such as this, however, classification is not particularly helpful. "The question basically is…

Matter of Markowitz v. Mack Markowitz, Inc.

" The assistant sales manager of the corporation testified that the decedent "had a lot of things to prepare"…