From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Smith v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 1998
255 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 25, 1998

Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board.


Claimant, a parking monitor, was returning to work after eating at a restaurant on her unpaid lunch break when she fell on a wet floor located in front of the elevator leading out of the restaurant. The Workers' Compensation Board denied claimant benefits on the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. We affirm. Lunchtime injuries are generally deemed to occur outside the scope of employment except under limited circumstances where the employer continues to exercise authority over the employee during the lunch break (see, Matter of Smith v. United States Trucking Corp., 66 A.D.2d 939). Since claimant had discretion over the timing and location of her lunch breaks, and as the employer neither suggested that she purchase lunch at that particular restaurant nor derived any benefit from her decision to do so, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision (see, Matter of Coningsby v. New York State Dept. of Corrections, 245 A.D.2d 1009).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Smith v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 1998
255 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Smith v. City of Rochester

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of DONNA SMITH, Appellant, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER…

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

Date published: Nov 25, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 371

Citing Cases

In re Grant

We affirm. In order for an injury to be compensable, it must have arisen out of and in the course of…

Volz v. State

In Matter of Huggins v Masterclass Masonry (83 AD3d 1345, 1346 [3d Dept 2011]), the court reminded that:…