The proof established a pattern of contributions to the father on the part of the decedent from his earnings from which it was reasonable for the board to infer that the father's standard of living was detrimentally affected by the loss of the son's contributions. Questions of dependency and contribution are questions of fact for the board, and in this instance there is substantial evidence to support the determination of the board (Matter of Smith v Crosson's Serv. Sta., 28 A.D.2d 577; Matter of Telarico v Conway, 28 A.D.2d 776). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers' Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Greenblott, J.P., Sweeney, Kane, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Per Curiam. Appeal from a decision awarding death benefits to decedent employee's mother; the question of dependency being the sole issue presented on the appeal. There is evidence which the board was entitled to accept that decedent contributed to the necessary expenses of the family of four substantially more than his share of the cost of maintenance of the household (see Matter of Telarico v. Conway, 28 A.D.2d 776; Matter of Goldsmith v. Good Humor Corp., 23 A.D.2d 901; Matter of Frear v. Ells, 200 App. Div. 239; Matter of Frey v. McLoughlin Bros., 187 App. Div. 824); and the board was equally warranted in inferring that the family was detrimentally affected by the loss of his contributions ( Matter of Smith v. Crosson's Serv. Sta., 28 A.D.2d 577, mot. for lv. to app. den. 20 N.Y.2d 644; Matter of Markidis v. American Airlines, 21 A.D.2d 927; Matter of Holloway v. Camp Hatikvah, 14 A.D.2d 638). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam; Reynolds, J., dissents and votes to remit in the following memorandum:

( Matter of Holloway v. Camp Hatikvah, 14 A.D.2d 638. ) The record indicates that the claimants were unable to meet their own living expenses from the father's income, and that the decedent made a substantial contribution to them during 1965 for their support. There is substantial evidence from which the board could properly find that decedent's contributions were a necessary part of claimants' income, and that they were both dependents within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law. ( Matter of Telarico v. Conway, 28 A.D.2d 776; Matter of Smith v. Crosson's Serv. Station, 28 A.D.2d 577; Matter of Markidis v. American Airlines, 21 A.D.2d 927.) Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Herlihy, J.P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.