From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Pessel v. R.H. Macy Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 1972
40 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Summary

In Pessel the board found that "the sudden, irregular icy blasts constituted a situation different from that occurring where the work environment is one of constant and continuous exposure to steady cold".

Summary of this case from Matter of Floom v. Harfred Operating Company

Opinion

October 26, 1972


Appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board, filed November 18, 1971. The board found that claimant had sustained an industrial accident resulting in myositis of the cervical spine. The board further found that "claimant worked in an area where the air conditioning ducts expelled cold air that created draughts that struck claimant's neck activating an underlying arthritic condition and produced symptoms and constitutes an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment". Appellant urges that this case lacks that element of suddenness of onset or result necessary for a finding of accident. We do not agree. Claimant testified that the air conditioning system "did not always work well * * * Sometimes it was ice cold" and the cold blasts struck her neck and shoulders. The board could properly find that the sudden, irregular icy blasts constituted a situation different from that occurring where the work environment is one of constant and continuous exposure to steady cold. ( Matter of Luryc v. Stern Bros. Dept. Store, 275 N.Y. 182.) Furthermore, claimant's sudden pains were sufficient to satisfy the test of suddenness of result ( Matter of Greensmith v. Franklin Nat. Bank, 21 A.D.2d 576, affd. 16 N.Y.2d 973). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Staley, Jr., J.P., Greenblott, Cooke and Kane, JJ., concur; Reynolds, J., dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss in the following memorandum: I vote to reverse and dismiss the claim on the grounds that the facts produced do not constitute an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.


Summaries of

Matter of Pessel v. R.H. Macy Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 1972
40 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

In Pessel the board found that "the sudden, irregular icy blasts constituted a situation different from that occurring where the work environment is one of constant and continuous exposure to steady cold".

Summary of this case from Matter of Floom v. Harfred Operating Company
Case details for

Matter of Pessel v. R.H. Macy Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of MIRIAM PESSEL, Respondent, v. R.H. MACY CO.…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 1972

Citations

40 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Middleton v. Coxsackie Fac

wards, stated that a "lengthening line of recent cases in this court commits us to a different conclusion."…

McCabe v. Watertown Corr. Facility

The employer argues that there is an absence of proof establishing that claimant sustained an accidental…