Matter of Pomakoy v. American Locomotive Company

4 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Camaro v. Starbuck

    19 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)   Cited 5 times

    Upon such a finding as the board made, the injury came within the scope of employment. See Matter of Gaik v. National Aniline Division ( 5 A.D.2d 1039); Matter of Carrasquilla v. Penn Akron Co. ( 10 A.D.2d 135); Matter of Manville v. New York State Dept. of Labor ( 294 N.Y. 1). Cases such as Matter of Pomakoy v. American Locomotive Co. ( 277 App. Div. 823) and Matter of Funarie v. Mohawk Club ( 257 App. Div. 887) were based on factual findings against claimant; and Matter of Milberg v. Behr-Manning Corp. ( 274 App. Div. 862) is not in point. The decision in Matter of White v. Consolidated Aircraft Corp. ( 266 N.Y. 554) turned upon a somewhat different principle.

  2. Claim of Brienza v. Le Chase Construction Corp.

    17 A.D.2d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)   Cited 14 times

    The board on this record found that the accident occurred on a public street and was not caused by a failure of the employer "to maintain safe egress and ingress". The problem of when an employee (an inside worker) proceeding to his labors has attached himself to his employment for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Law has at times not been easily resolved. It is safe to say that once he has reached the employer's premises be it only to the point of reaching a private sidewalk belonging to the employer employment has attached ( Matter of Manville v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 294 N.Y. 1; see, also, Matter of Moskowitz v. Granata, 9 A.D.2d 310). It is equally the law that the normal risks of street travel to and from employment are not risks of employment ( Matter of Pomakoy v. American Locomotive Co., 277 App. Div. 823; Matter of Amento v. Bond Stores, 274 App. Div. 863; Matter of Funarie v. Mohawk Club, 257 App. Div. 887; Matter of White v. Consolidated Aircraft Corp., 242 App. Div. 712, affd. without opinion 266 N.Y. 554). As in many other areas of the law, there lies between these clearly defined postulates a gray area where the ordinary risks of street travel merge into the risks attendant with employment. In each case it is for the trier of the facts to determine whether the risks which resulted in the injury are attendant to the employment relationship or are severable therefrom. It is for the board to determine, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, whether this street was within the employer's precincts or within the periphery of claimant's employment, not the province of this court. It is contended by the majority opinion that at times employees waited at the gate for the same to be unlocked, and that for this reason the board could have determined that the street was within the em

  3. Matter of Carrasquilla v. Penn Akron Co.

    10 A.D.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)   Cited 9 times

    The court said: "Cases where public sidewalk injuries have not been held compensable involve situations in which the employee is deemed to have detached himself from the employment or not yet to have attached himself to it when injured on the public street. Matter of Amento v. Bond Stores ( 274 App. Div. 863) and Matter of Pomakoy v. American Locomotive Co. ( 277 App. Div. 823) are examples."

  4. Claim of Gaik v. National Aniline Division

    5 A.D.2d 1039 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    Cases where public sidewalk injuries have not been held compensable involve situations in which the employee is deemed to have detached himself from the employment or not yet to have attached himself to it when injured on the public street. Matter of Amento v. Bond Stores ( 274 App. Div. 863) and Matter of Pomakoy v. American Locomotive Co. ( 277 App. Div. 823) are examples. The decision in Matter of Milberg v. Behr-Manning Corp. ( 274 App. Div. 862) has some superficial resemblance to the case before us because claimant was going back to perform a forgotten duty for employer after she had left the premises; but it is distinguishable in the circumstances that her forgetting and turning in the public street to go back was not the result of any act or provision of facility by the employer.