From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Nuborazek v. Waterman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 1949
275 App. Div. 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

May 11, 1949.

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Law.

Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ.


The issues involved on appeal are whether decedent was covered by the insurance policy issued to the employer, and whether on the trial of the claim the referee improperly excluded evidence offered by the carrier. The policy in question was issued in the individual name of De Witt C. Waterman, who operated an automobile accessory service station at Herkimer, New York. The policy, however, covered construction work of various kinds and the coverage extended to any place in the State of New York. The individual insured was engaged in a partnership enterprise with his brother in what has been characterized "bulldozer operations". The deceased employee was killed while operating a bulldozer away from the premises at Herkimer, New York. The board found that the policy was intended to and did cover the business and work in which the deceased employee was engaged at the time of the accident, and directed the reformation of the policy. There is substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the board in all respects and to justify its direction as to reformation of the policy. We do not find that the referee improperly excluded any relevant testimony. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board.


Summaries of

Matter of Nuborazek v. Waterman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 1949
275 App. Div. 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Matter of Nuborazek v. Waterman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of FREDERICKA NUBORAZEK, on Behalf of Herself…

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

Date published: May 11, 1949

Citations

275 App. Div. 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Citing Cases

Matter of Blenner v. Landis, Inc.

The court felt the indorsement of exclusion was inoperative because it was not properly countersigned, but…

Blenner v. Joseph Landis, Inc.

The court felt the indorsement of exclusion was inoperative because it was not properly countersigned, but…