Matter of Lewis v. Maujer Wet Wash Laundry

1 Citing case

  1. Matter of Schreckinger v. York Distrs

    9 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)   Cited 6 times

    In addition, to adopt the carrier's interpretation of the statute would create an artificial distinction between a claimant who lost a third-party action and one who succeeded in recovering a money judgment, no matter how small. We think a reasonable and logical interpretation of deficiency compensation within the legislative intent is the difference between the amount actually collected from a third party and the benefits to which he is entitled under the Workmen's Compensation Law. There are cases which support this interpretation ( Matter of Lewis v. Maujer Wet Wash Laundry, 217 App. Div. 809; Matter of Sadofsky v. Nouveaute Co., 218 N.Y. 806 ; Matter of Breitel v. Hinderstein, 236 App. Div. 203, affd. 261 N.Y. 556). In the case last cited an action was discontinued without the consent of the carrier, and the court held the carrier was prejudiced, and since there was no judgment on the merits there could be no award for a deficiency.